The US has the best health care in the world?

[Hans de Vries]

Hans, there's no use in making an infant mortality comparison unless you know the standards used in making the count. You do not, or have not demonstrated it here.

These are the official lists used internationally to compare this particular statistic.
You have to give a quantitative indication of what percentage of births belongs
to these exceptional cases.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
There are other factors, such as the abortion rate, that neatly remove what might high risk pregnancies from the statistics. The abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html" in Europe is nearly twice as high as in North America.

Actually, It's the other way around for the countries we are talking
about. According to your source:

Abortion rates per 100 known pregnancies:

Western Europe... 17
Northern Europe... 23
Northern America... 26
Southern Europe... 34
Eastern Europe...65

The total number for Europe is skewed by the higher abortion rates in
the former Sovjet-Block states.

Regards, Hans

 

[mheslep]

These are the official lists used internationally to compare this particular statistic.
You have to give a quantitative indication of what percentage of births belongs
to these exceptional cases...

'Official' list? Exceptional cases? There is no 'official' list, that's an argument from authority fallacy. The CIA list is a still just a list. There's a source, and we judge its accuracy and value depending on the documented process behind it. What does 'infant mortality' mean? How are premature or low birth weight pregnancies counted? What are the average ages of women having babies in those countries? I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

 

[Hans de Vries]

'Official' list? Exceptional cases? There is no 'official' list, that's a a argument from authority fallacy. The CIA list is a still just a list. There's a source, and we judge its accuracy and value depending on the documented process behind it. We can only assume that the CIA is using the OECD data like everyone else. I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

You fail to give any proof for your claims. You can't just simply bend the facts
until you like them. Do you really believe yourself what you are saying?

This is a SCIENTIFIC website. Try to argue in a SCIENTIFIC way. Give me FACTS
and not your BELIEFS.

 

[mheslep]

You fail to give any proof for your claims. You can't just simply bend the facts
until you like them. Do you really believe yourself what you are saying?

This is a SCIENTIFIC website. Try to argue in a SCIENTIFIC way. Give me FACTS
and not your BELIEFS.

Han's YOU have made made the claims here, and followed them up with hyperbole and assertion. Where are your facts? You've quoted a Wiki page, with no backup or further definition. The conclusions you draw in #686 are simple nonsense, you should delete it.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Han's YOU have made made the claims here, and followed them up with hyperbole and assertion. Where are your facts? You've quoted a Wiki page, with no backup or further definition. The conclusions you draw in #686 are simple nonsense, you should delete it.

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.
The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:

West Virginia ... 7.5
Oklahoma .... 7.5
Arkansas .... 7.2
Louisiana .... 7.1
Indiana ... 7.0
Tennessee ... 7.0
Mississippi ... 7.0

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.
Map of Infant mortality under non-Hispanic whites in the US per state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
Infant mortality per country worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

 

[mheslep]

As I alluded to above, one of the difficulties in counting is deciding what's a still birth and what's a live birth.
Dutch pediatric association:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3677278.stm

.. At 23/24 weeks' gestation, the chances of a positive prognosis for the premature baby are so slender that, in principle, no intensive [post natal] care is offered...

Thus any birth at less that 25 weeks is counted as a still birth in the Netherlands. And the infant mortality statistics are heavily impacted (34% of all infant deaths) by premature births in the US:

CONCLUSIONS. On the basis of this evaluation, preterm birth is the most frequent cause of infant death in the United States, accounting for at least one third of infant deaths in 2002. The extreme prematurity of most of the infants and their short survival indicate that reducing infant mortality rates requires a comprehensive agenda to identify, to test, and to implement effective strategies for the prevention of preterm birth

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/4/1566

 

[mheslep]

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

We can compare state to state in the US and have that discussion if you like, because live birth and still births are counted the same way across the US. They are NOT measured the same way across other countries as has been shown now in a couple of posts.

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.

Please. You were saying this is a scientific website?

 

[WhoWee]

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.

Hans,

Do you realize you've provided more data in this discussion
than the politicians leading the debate? There is of course a reason.

The Government run programs are in trouble. The Social Security funds have been stolen, and medicare and medicaid are both in trouble. Nobody wants to solve the inherent problems.

At the same time, the insurance industry is over-regulated (which leads to ineffciency and higher administrative costs) and competition is cost prohibitive. Additionally, the cost of uninsured (unpaid balances) are passed on to the insured and people with pre-existing conditions are forced to accept indemnity coverage or left on their own.

The politicians want a single payer system for one reason. They will control all of the money. Let me repeat, the politicians want to control ALL of the money. It's the best way for them to fix the Ponzi scheme (as described earlier) that social Security has become.

This debate is not focused on specific improvements to infant mortality or any other issues. We are hearing about H1N1 a lot in the past few days though - as Rahm Emanuel said ...take advantage of every crisis.

Until politics is removed from the debate and problem solving techniques are applied, nothing will be resolved.

 

[turbo]

At the same time, the insurance industry is over-regulated (which leads to ineffciency and higher administrative costs) and competition is cost prohibitive. Additionally, the cost of uninsured (unpaid balances) are passed on to the insured and people with pre-existing conditions are forced to accept indemnity coverage or left on their own.

I have spent years in the bowels of a large private medical practice, I assure you (as Adreneline will attest) that this is NOT the case. Insurance companies are not over-regulated. They are under-regulated, and they make the rules under which our health-care providers have to operate, to the detriment of all of us.

There are those on the sidelines (mostly right-wingers with no experience in the provision of medical services) that claim that over-regulation of the insurance companies caused health insurance costs to double in less than a decade, when a reasonable review of the facts proves otherwise. It is the lack of oversight and regulation that allow health insurance companies to Balkanize US health care and create state-wide monopolies that are practically impossible to break.

We need to get the GOP/Dem dichotomy out of this, and break up a monopoly that threatens to destroy the US economy. If we don't get meaningful and effective (cost-savings) health care reform soon, the US will be a third-rate country with nothing but a bloated military and massive debt to distinguish us. That, and the fact that anyone who comes down with a catastrophic illness forfeits all his or her savings and assets to the wealthy in a possibly futile attempt to stay alive.

 

[WhoWee]

I have spent years in the bowels of a large private medical practice, I assure you (as Adreneline will attest) that this is NOT the case. Insurance companies are not over-regulated. They are under-regulated, and they make the rules under which our health-care providers have to operate, to the detriment of all of us.

There are those on the sidelines (mostly right-wingers with no experience in the provision of medical services) that claim that over-regulation of the insurance companies caused health insurance costs to double in less than a decade, when a reasonable review of the facts proves otherwise. It is the lack of oversight and regulation that allow health insurance companies to Balkanize US health care and create state-wide monopolies that are practically impossible to break.

We need to get the GOP/Dem dichotomy out of this, and break up a monopoly that threatens to destroy the US economy. If we don't get meaningful and effective (cost-savings) health care reform soon, the US will be a third-rate country with nothing but a bloated military and massive debt to distinguish us. That, and the fact that anyone who comes down with a catastrophic illness forfeits all his or her savings and assets to the wealthy in a possibly futile attempt to stay alive.

The over-regulation I'm referring to is primarily with regards to individual state mandates, HIPPA requirements, and tax considerations.

 

[WhoWee]

all i know is private insurances follow medicare fee schedules. some pay less ( I fire those plans when I review their contract and see they are paying us less than medicare set fees)

This directly effects health care quality.

 

[WhoWee]

here is a good synopsis about the public option facts and myths
http://www.pnhp.org/change/Public_Option_Myths_and_Facts.pdf


see page 2


Obama's public option won't save me on my adminstrative and beaurocratic costs.


I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them.

Medicare's rules are simple, their formulay does not change every three months, I know where I stand with them. WHen they privatized into competeing HMOs, most of us just could not handle the "patchwork" of differing regulations and rules etc, hence, most of us don't take privatized medicare. ( in my county)

She outlined some of the problems regarding regulations.

 

[WhoWee]

I had to send my office manager to numerous classes that were not cheap, hired a consultant and software engineer to make our electronic medical records Hippa compliant, had to renovate our office ( put glass panels between nurses stations and patient rooms) and make our office hippa compliant, etc. probably 50-75 thous?

This was her response when I asked about the specific cost of HIPPA to her practice. It cost her over $50,000 and possibly as much as $75,000 - for one office.

 

[turbo]

I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them.

Medicare's rules are simple, their formulay does not change every three months, I know where I stand with them. WHen they privatized into competeing HMOs, most of us just could not handle the "patchwork" of differing regulations and rules etc, hence, most of us don't take privatized medicare. ( in my county)

You have badly mischaracterized Adreleline's statements. Re-read her quote and realize that her administrative costs are huge with private insurers, and are modest and predictable with Medicare/Medicaid. I have tried to make this point over and over again in this thread only to be put down for offering "apocryphal" stories. I lived this situation for years and years, trying to improve the practice's receivable aging. We did a lot, only to butt up against the brick wall of initial denials (which are worse in some companies than others, but are industry-standard). In a fair system, an insurance company should have to pay reasonable claims up-front, and then contest claims after the fact, if necessary. This is not the US system. The US system forces doctors to keep coders and billing specialists busy full-time coding, submitting, and re-coding and resubmitting in order to get any payment for services rendered. Health insurance is a protection racket. It is not "insurance" in any reasonable interpretation of the word, since your carrier will drop you as soon as you get any expensive illness.

 

[WhoWee]

You have badly mischaracterized Adreleline's statements. Re-read her quote and realize that her administrative costs are huge with private insurers, and are modest and predictable with Medicare/Medicaid. I have tried to make this point over and over again in this thread only to be put down for offering "apocryphal" stories. I lived this situation for years and years, trying to improve the practice's receivable aging. We did a lot, only to butt up against the brick wall of initial denials (which are worse in some companies than others, but are industry-standard). In a fair system, an insurance company should have to pay reasonable claims up-front, and then contest claims after the fact, if necessary. This is not the US system. The US system forces doctors to keep coders and billing specialists busy full-time coding, submitting, and re-coding and resubmitting in order to get any payment for services rendered. Health insurance is a protection racket. It is not "insurance" in any reasonable interpretation of the word, since your carrier will drop you as soon as you get any expensive illness.

I'm not trying to mischarachterize her statements - that's why I posted her entire statement. Instead, I wanted to draw attention to the administrative nightmare faced by insurance companies and providers.

When she says
"I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them."

Her reference to 200 private insurance plans provides a real analysis of the difficulties providers face administratively. If those 200 plans are (most likely) spread across 25 to 30 (6 to 8 plans each) insurance companies total. Now expand those 25 to 30 companies and 200 policies to 50 states and we realize the same 25 to 30 companies have 10,000 (state specific) policies to manage.

Her concern is that HR3200 will greatly increase the problem by adding as many as 100 MORE plans to administer.

One of the biggest wastes in the insurance industry is differing standards mandated across the states. There is no reason whatsoever we can't have 10 or 12 basic health plans that everyone offers. This standardization would simplify coding, create competition, eliminate 49 compliance departments at each of the 25 to 30 insurance companies, eliminate duplication in all 50 state departments of insurance, speed payment, expand coverage (due to cost savings), and enable coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, we need to remove politics from the debate and focus on solving specific problems.

 

[Al68]

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.
The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:

West Virginia ... 7.5
Oklahoma .... 7.5
Arkansas .... 7.2
Louisiana .... 7.1
Indiana ... 7.0
Tennessee ... 7.0
Mississippi ... 7.0

Gee, the rich states have lower infant mortality rates. Big surprise.

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.

Why the hate? No one is against reform. The current proposal being debated in the U.S. is not reform, it just the opposite.

 

[Al68]

Again, we need to remove politics from the debate and focus on solving specific problems.

That's hard to do when the debate is about whether to use political power to solve problems.

 

[Hans de Vries]

I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

You provided multiple wrong references:

All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO
definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant morality is
defined as dead before the first birthday after live birth, and

A live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or any definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat

Definitions used in the by the WHO, the European union, individual US states and
various other countries: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htmRegards, Hans

 

[Hans de Vries]

World Health statistics 2009:

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html


Regards, Hans

 

[mheslep]

When you have a moment could you provide the source for this statement:

..All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant morality is defined as dead before the first birthday after live birth, and

Because this statement above and this one below

Definitions used in the by the WHO, the European union, individual US states and various other countries: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm

appear to be at odds with one another.

 

[Hans de Vries]

When you have a moment could you provide the source for this statement:
Because this statement above and this one below
appear to be at odds with one another.

See reference [7] at the end of the third paragraph which specifically defuses the false claims in the reference you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rateseRegards

 

[mheslep]

See reference [7] at the end of the third paragraph which specifically defuses the false claims in the reference you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates

A wiki reference? You made that earlier post

..All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant

based on a wiki reference, with no attribution to wiki? C'mon, I think you know better.

 

[Hans de Vries]

A wiki reference? You made that earlier post
based on a wiki reference, with no attribution to wiki? C'mon, I think you know better.

It's clear now that both the US and the European Union adopted the definition
of infant mortality and live birth as defined by the World Health Organization.

http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_a1_frep_01_en.pdf

So that the tables entries can be compared one to one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00027&plugin=0&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels

Regards, Hans

 

[WhoWee]

Details begin to emerge - just like car insurance (?) with fines up to $3,800.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

"
Fines proposed for going without health insurance AP

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners. "

 

[Al68]

Details begin to emerge - just like car insurance (?) with fines up to $3,800.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

"
Fines proposed for going without health insurance AP

This isn't exactly breaking news, although the exact details are still being discussed. And the fine is not just for not having health insurance at all, it's for not buying one that meets HR3200 requirements, ie, a Cadillac superpolicy.

 

[adrenaline]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums. If you support UHC then you have to support mandatory coverage.

This addresses the problem with those people who stay out of the insurance until they think that they are running out of health. At that point they will suddenly opt in and gain coverage without all of the years of paying in. The young don't avoid health insurance because they are healthy, they avoid health insurance because they are cheap.

 

[WhoWee]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums. If you support UHC then you have to support mandatory coverage.

This addresses the problem with those people who stay out of the insurance until they think that they are running out of health. At that point they will suddenly opt in and gain coverage without all of the years of paying in. The young don't avoid health insurance because they are healthy, they avoid health insurance because they are cheap.

I understand why they've developed this strategy. However, unless they also hand out waivers to people who want insurance now (but really can't afford it), they're going to penalize the group that most needs coverage.

 

[WhoWee]

This isn't exactly breaking news, although the exact details are still being discussed. And the fine is not just for not having health insurance at all, it's for not buying one that meets HR3200 requirements, ie, a Cadillac superpolicy.

As I've disclosed previously, I'm a licensed insurance agent. If we can find the proposed coverage mandates, I'll pull a price quote for an average family of 4 - from a large company.

 

[jreelawg]

I understand why they've developed this strategy. However, unless they also hand out waivers to people who want insurance now (but really can't afford it), they're going to penalize the group that most needs coverage.

It is beginning to look like Hillary is going to get her way. Her campaign argued a mandatory insurance plan. During that time, my take was that it was a give away to insurance companies, by forcing people who can't afford it to buy it anyways. This would make it even easier to rip us off because they wouldn't need to make it affordable for the lower class, the lower class would just have to give up eating, or home heating, or electricity. Obama campaigned against this.

Now it seams that Obama's campaign promise is being snuffed out, and Hillary and the Insurance companies are getting what they want. I hope this isn't the case.

 

[Wax]

Make or break night on health care! I hope he makes it.

 

[mheslep]

Baucus, who apparently leads a group of bipartisan Senator's, has released an outline of his health plan.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_framework.html

Key points:
-Mandated coverage
-Interstate insurance
-Co-ops
-Guaranteed issue, no pre-existing blocks.

I don't like the mandates, but we won't get guaranteed issue/no pre-existing condition without it. Co-ops from what I read are very tricky to get right; it appears Baucus has put some real work into the them.

Insurance Reform in the Non-Group Market. Beginning January 1, 2013, health insurance plans in the individual market would be required to offer coverage on a guaranteed issue basis and would be prohibited from excluding coverage for pre-existing health conditions.
...
Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form “health care choice compacts” to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued.
...
Individual Responsibility. Beginning in 2013, all US citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase health insurance or have health coverage from an employer, through a public program (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP), or through some other source that meets the minimum creditable coverage standard.

Edit: I expect this is closest to what will happen, perhaps by parts.

 

[WhoWee]

I heard a few things in Obama's speech that I liked. First, he pushed back on illegal immigrant coverage and down played the public option, the insurance exchange might mean standardization across the states (not sure) but will probably eliminate sales agents. Plus, he at least mentioned Tort reform - but also set it up to fail as a Bush initiative.

On the flip side, $0 deficit spending is laughable and no/low deductible, mandated testing, no limit to coverage, pre-existing inclusion, and elimination of the approval process is unrealistic as per cost. All of these things will increase premiums.

Accordingly (again, I'm a licensed insurance agent), I just pulled a quote for a family of 4 from one of the nations top 5 health insurance carriers - they have middle of the road pricing and a huge network.

As per the Presidents mandates, I rated-up one adult for a pre-existing (only 25% - same as high blood pressure - my guess is a real pre-existing will be a 100% + rate-up in practice), a family deductible of $1,000 total (including prescriptions and the mamography, Pap smear, and PSA testing), a $25 doctors visit co-pay, a $500 accident benefit, a $5.0 million lifetime benefit (they don't have a higher option amount - unlimited WILL cost more) and the premium would be $1,852 per month (with a 2 year agreement).

The total cost for this family of 4 would be $22,224 per year, plus the $1,000 deductible and the $25 co-pay per each doctor visit. For the record, this cost is in line with the so called "Cadillac Plans" the large unions typically enjoy.

The problem I see is that premiums will increase and make it impossible for a large number of average families - who will be fined for not purchasing the coverages.

On a final note, as long as the Government doesn't pay for these coverages, just mandates higher premiums, it could help offset the mandated costs to insurance companies and (this part of the plan) shouldn't add much to deficit spending.

 

[Al68]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums.

Ahhh, necessity: the cry of tyrants and the creed of slaves. (Benjamin Franklin)

So, we are to be forced to "share" medical risks? Gee, nothing socialist about the government forcing people to share.

 

[f95toli]

Gee, nothing socialist about the government forcing people to share.

No offense, but I am getting REALLY tired of people throwing the word "socialist" around like that. Universal healthcare is definitely not just a "socialist" idea. you can find supporters for some form of government funded healtcare system is just about every major political ideology; socialism (obviously), conservatism (definitely modern paternal conservatism, but most branches would support it to some degree) and most branches of liberalism. That modern social-liberalism supports it goes without saying but even some forms of classical liberalism would potentially support a scheme like this.

The only political ideologies that could not (because of underlying principles) support UH are classical liberalism (a'la Spencer and other forms of "extreme" laissez-faire liberalism), probably libertarians and obviously anarcho-minimalists.
Anarchists would not support it simply because they don't believe in any form of government so they are not really relevant here.