ok: can someone tell me what good is left for the health care reform

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

[quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.

[Anonymous]

[quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.

[Anonymous]

[quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.

[Anonymous]

[quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.

[Author]

Posts