Healthcare and Soylent Green

[WhiskeyGirl]

From the comments -

BrianSDCA9/15/2009 9:43:01 PM

Ruben,

We have too many low wage earning illegal immigrants producing large families that they can not afford without permanent public assistance. The US born children of illegal immigrants are instantly anointed with valuable US citizenship. They are potentially eligible to all entitlements including Medicaid (Medi-Cal), Food Stamps, welfare (Calworks), SSI, SSA, college scholarships and more. These are huge incentives to immigrate illegally. We need to stop birthright citizenship for the children of foreign nationals. Until this has ended, we will always have a problem with illegal immigration. The US government needs to set precedence that illegal immigration will not be rewarded.

heavybuddy9/15/2009 9:32:50 PM

The Chronicle made one big error by running a column written by a member of the largest terrorist organization in the US, La Raza, a man whose love of his "people" is matched only by his hatred for America.

nwkerr20059/15/2009 10:15:46 PM

Illegal immigration no matter how you paint it Ruben, is a drain on our economy. The children should not be granted birthright citizenship unless one parent is legal resident. I don't think illegals should get free anything- including emergency room visits. If they are seen, they should be treated, their country should be billed, and the patient should be deprted thankful that they were treated at all.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/15/ED4219NE93.DTL#ixzz0RGzHUM6p

[WhiskeyGirl]

Was the goal of healthcare reform to provide choices to illegal aliens?  Bankrupt insurnace companies?

I seem to recall that most health insurance companies, selling private insurance, do not cover those here illegally, and some that are immigrants and permanent residents.  They do ask about immigration status. 

Insurance companies help provide coverage, they are not an extension of the welfare state, and have a strong financial interest in ensuring they are not victims of fraud, waste, and abuse - they have to look look out for all their policyholders and make a profit. 

Would the healthcare bills prevent insurance companies from asking about immigration status too?

If you lie on an application, should you get coverage?

[Edward]

We do not see any insurance companies complaining durring this debate..

What is the purpose of this health-care reform..
Does it mean that the government will provide payment for all medical needs that you will require in your lifetime ?
It appears to me that there is a different agenda then heath care going on and the people as usual are not getting the point. 

[WhiskeyGirl]

We do not see any insurance companies complaining durring this debate..

What is the purpose of this health-care reform..
Does it mean that the government will provide payment for all medical needs that you will require in your lifetime ?
It appears to me that there is a different agenda then heath care going on and the people as usual are not getting the point. 

I think insurance companies know that for the individual market, which has been dying for years, Obamacare is a death sentence.

The same reasons the uninsured are sinking hospitals will be the same reason they sink the individual health insurance market.

Mandated Obamacare benefits will shrink the group market, for the same reasons.  More coverage than folks can afford.

Who can afford 13% of the income for healthcare?  I'm guessing that many will get a government subsidy, and others will pay more than they are paying today. 

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

I listened to some of the Obama commentary from Sunday.  He keep mentioning the number of folks that have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills.  Why?

Did anyone educate these folks on the importance of maintaining some kind of healthcare coverage?   That healthcare coverage is not cheap, but is much cheaper than the bills the uninsured may have?

Health insurance is not a lottery you win automatically, without paying your dollar?  It's not a jackpot?  A sweepstake?

If you have a major medical problem it could cost well over $100,000 and that $350 monthly premium is a bargain? 

The kicker...you must sign up before you experience ill health.  If you're lucky, you'll never need to use your coverage. 

Yes, there are some problems.

I remember the story about the woman from Canada that could not get treated for her cancer.  She sold her house and came to the U.S.

Why?  Perhaps she could not access the universal healthcare system?  Was there any price she could have paid for coverage?

She SOLD her house to save her life.  She came to the U.S. because we take cash for healthcare services.

In the U.S., IIRC TV advertisements for bankruptcy attorneys, you can usually keep your house, car and other things.  Bankruptcy is a 'fresh' start.

That woman in Canada didn't have the opportunity for healthcare at any price.  She didn't need a fresh start, she sold her house to save her life.

Life and healthcare is still good in the U.S.  It's not perfect, but is available just like produce in the grocery story.

Where in Barack's message is responsibility?  If one uses healthcare serves, one is expected to pay for them.  Healthcare is a commodity just like electricity, water, and food.

Folks that file bankruptcy get a fresh start.

A Canadian woman couldn't get treatment at any price in Canada.  She sold her house and came to the U.S. for treatment.

Life is good in America.

What happens when you can't get healthcare at any price?

JMHO

[A's Fever]

I haven't done any research in this topic, however, I would think that denial of health ins coverage, coverage limitations, costly treatments and prescriptions not covered by policy, and the inability to pay for coverage when unemployed and Cobra runs out might be reasons for medical related bankruptcies. 

[WhiskeyGirl]

I haven't done any research in this topic, however, I would think that denial of health ins coverage, coverage limitations, costly treatments and prescriptions not covered by policy, and the inability to pay for coverage when unemployed and Cobra runs out might be reasons for medical related bankruptcies. 

"denial of health ins coverage, coverage limitations, costly treatments and prescriptions not covered"  Medicare and Medicaid do not cover everything.  There are hugh gaps in coverage, and Medicare can have some high deductibles, coinsurance, and out of pocket expenses.  A long time ago, there were theories that suggested that government, taxpayers, and individuals did not have unlimited funds, and money.  Choices would have to be made.

What is the incentive to save money?  Use the coverage responsibily?  Why shouldn't people pay for their every day medical expenses out of pocket? 

Why shouldn't everyone pay the same fair prices for healthcare related items, prescriptions, and services? 

From my experience, my insurance rate for a prescription is $78 a month.  The store discount rate, no insurance is about $56.  A Canadian pharmacy wants just $30 per month.  I've been told the same thing can be had from places like India for even less.

Why do I have to pay $78 or $56 when it seems like everyone else in the world pays less?  Why shouldn't everyone pay the same fair price?  Why do Americans get the shaft?  If everyone had the same fair prices as people in places like India paid, maybe healthcare coverage wouldn't be such a big deal.

"...the inability to pay for coverage when unemployed and Cobra runs out..."  Why not look for a catastrophic plan?  iirc, much of the world exists without any kind of health insurance.  Is there national health in India or China?

Isn't it possible that part of the solution involves finding cheaper way to treat people?  Changing the paridigm about treatment?  Patient monetary responsibility to PURCHASE coverage and pay for every day expenses without government support?

If providers had to compete for patients based on price, maybe there would be some savings?

Savings through tort reform?

Does any health insurance/program/government/taxpayer/individual have access to unlimited funding?

People in the U.S. still have the opportunity to rack up medical debts, file bankruptcy, and live.

How many in places like Canada, don't have that choice?  How many cannot pay privately because it is against the law?  How many don't have a house to sell to pay for treatment in a foreign country?  How many die because they do not have choices like those in the U.S.?

How many wake up and have the opportunity to say "I am still alive"?

Just some thoughts.

jmho

[A's Fever]

I do not understand what you are talking about here.  In your previous post you asked if anyone had educated the uninsured about the importance of maintaining coverage, thereby suggesting that medical related bankruptcy is due to carelessness on the part of the consumer.  My post pointed out that there are many other possible reasons for medical bankruptcy. 

[Edward]

Set in the year 2022, Soylent Green depicts a dystopian future in which the population has grown to 40 million in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the impoverished homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings as well as abandoned cars and underground tunnels. The city is in a constant state of emergency from overcrowding, widespread crime, 50% unemployment, and starvation. Smog is everywhere, and most of Earth's natural resources are gone. There is almost no traffic in any of the streets due to shortages of gasoline and crude oil. A city-wide curfew from dusk to dawn is always in effect. The greenhouse effect has made the current summer months an unbearable 90F degrees. Food as we know it today–including fruit, vegetables, and meat–is a rare and expensive commodity. Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation (Portmanteau from soy(bean) + lent(il)), including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates". The newest product is Soylent Green - a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton". It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is—like most other food—in short supply, which often leads to food riots.

government-assisted suicide facility, where he sees corpses being loaded onto waste disposal trucks. He secretly hitches a ride on one of the trucks, which is driven to a heavily guarded waste disposal plant. Once inside the plant, Thorn sees the dead bodies being loaded onto a long coveyer belt and taken through a giant machine the size of the factory in which the corpses are processed into... Soylent Green wafers.




This is where a National Health care program and Control over every aspect of your life in the name of being in the best interests of your health as well Socialization of private enterprise leaving only the largest companies run by the most corrupted people to make decisions for your life and death every day.. and they will.. IF we let them.

[Edward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

[Edward]

Liberals Seek Health Care Access for Illegals
A group of House Democrats say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/27/liberals-seek-health-care-access-illegals/?test=latestnews

[WhiskeyGirl]

I do not understand what you are talking about here.  In your previous post you asked if anyone had educated the uninsured about the importance of maintaining coverage, thereby suggesting that medical related bankruptcy is due to carelessness on the part of the consumer.  My post pointed out that there are many other possible reasons for medical bankruptcy. 

I agree, there are many reasons people may file for medical bankruptcy.

There was a day when medical care, paid directly out of consumer pockets, was affordable for average people, no need to file bankruptcy.

Why is the price of medical care at such a high inflation rate? 

Why not attack the causes - rising price of care, and not the effect on individuals, 'medical bankruptcy'?

Why should an American pay $100 for a life saving drug, and other global citizens just $10, or perhaps as little as a few pennies?

Why shouldn't all global citizens have access to the same FAIR drug and other prices?

Why does it seem like American (taxpayers) get the shaft (debt) and other nations, large global corporations/businesses/people get the gold?  Who's looking out for Americans?

[WhiskeyGirl]

In a nutshell, its seems like the Obama plan for healthcare just shifts the bankruptcy from individuals, to taxpayers.  At some point, taxpayers won't be able to pay the bill, no money, no money to borrow, and the healthcare bubble will burst.

Who's going to pay when the healthcare bubble bursts?

Money gone, providers of services rich, taxpayer back broken, and no money for future growth and prosperity.

Anyone worrying about the healthcare bubble being created?

Isn't this what happened to the banking industry with that blank check for bad mortgages?

[Edward]

This is so important I had to make a double post..

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.

I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.

The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals.

Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.

Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.

The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with.

I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital.

All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you.

It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law.

It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to be bound by oath or to support the Constitution.

If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.

Here is a link to the Constitution:http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly - Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, TX 75006-8737
Michael Connelly has taken the time to read the entire bill. We should take the time to read his synopsis. It is critical to our future.

http://minutemanproject.com/newsmanager/templates/mmp.asp?articleid=1131&zoneid=1

[WhiskeyGirl]

Here is a case of an unfortunate woman with brain tumors.  I think there are a few other things that could have been advocated.  See comments below.

Four years ago, I was diagnosed with a rare, but treatable brain tumor. CIGNA denied me treatment for more than two years, but when I went public with the help of over 100,000 MoveOn members from around the country, CIGNA changed their tune.

I am thankful to MoveOn and CIGNA for this latest development. Unfortunately, CIGNA didn’t offer any explanation for all the previous denials, or a guarantee that they’ll approve the next step in my treatment.

Does CIGNA treat patients?  Or, do the pay for providers to treat people?

Isn't it possible that this woman could have received treatment by making alternative payment arrangements?

Did the hospital/medical centers/providers refuse to treat her due to her insurance status?  

Is refusing treatment against the law where she lives?

Like so many of you, I know the health care that we seek—the health care I pay to receive—is not a privilege, but a right. My mother and I cling to this belief every time we appeal to CIGNA for testing and treatment. It keeps us going in the face of their callous denials.

Are they appealing the treatment or payment for the treatment?

Are the hospitals/medical centers/providers offering reduced fees?  Payment plans?  Writing off her care?

Perhaps there are alternative that CIGNA would have paid for?

CIGNA, an insurance company I faithfully paid for almost six years, has answered two years of appeals for testing and treatment with generic denial letters because the treatment centers are out of network. Letters in support of this testing and treatment from doctors in the three leading health care systems in the metropolitan Atlanta area have not convinced them to reverse their decision.

Did Dawn, her family, providers, or the folks at MoveON ever ask the treatment centers to sign up with CIGNA as an IN NETWORK provider? 

Why aren't Dawn's treatment centers IN the CIGNA NETWORK?

IIRC, network providers have a negotiated fee, in theory, it helps SAVE consumers money. 

Is there payment, perhaps at a lesser percentage for out of network providers?

Why didn't MOVEON also work with the provider network to sign up as a CIGNA IN NETWORK provider?


http://www.itcouldhappentoanyone.com/

Can the insurance companies FORCE providers to accept in network rates and provisions?

Seems like some info is missing.  I wonder if other alternative were suggested to Dawn.

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Who should pay for Dawn's right to healthcare?  Who should pay for mine?

I wonder if the Dawn had the option to buy a policy that pays out of network providers?  Did she turn it down? 

Why didn't her providers join the network to ensure coverage by Dawn's policy?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Vermont, Iowa and Hawaii are at the top and Mississippi and Oklahoma are the worst, according to a new report.

Rounding out the top 10: Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire (tied for fifth), Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

...any ranking among states must also produce a bottom group. The state with the worst health system is Mississippi, according to the Commonwealth Fund. It's followed by Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Nevada, Texas, Kentucky, Florida, New Mexico and Illinois.

read more here - http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/best-states-healthcare-business-washington-reform.html

I wonder if this ranking is a vision of the future of healthcare in the US?

[WhiskeyGirl]

The drug companies, with the help of hundreds of hired lobbyists, have succeeded in keeping this proposal off the table, even though studies have shown it would save billions of dollars a year.

If healthcare legislation is signed into law with no controls on drug prices, the pharmaceutical industry will have won a financial bonanza. Drug companies will get millions of new customers while continuing a system that leaves the United States as the only country in the developed world that lets the industry charge more or less what it wishes. All other countries either limit medicine prices or the industry's profits.

The United States spends $300 billion a year on prescription drugs -- twice as much as we spend on higher education. We spend more on medicines than do all the people of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined.

It's true that discovering a new lifesaving drug is expensive. Whether the cost is as high as the industry claims continues to be a matter of fierce debate. The drug companies have refused to allow outside scrutiny of what they spend in their labs. In fact, the companies' actual research costs are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets. In the 1970s and 1980s, pharmaceutical companies waged a decade-long legal battle to keep even government auditors from reviewing those costs, leaving it unclear whether they include non- scientific costs such as promotion.

But there's a bigger issue that has largely escaped public scrutiny. Over the last 30 years, the industry hasn't focused its efforts on discovering those truly amazing innovations that can change the practice of medicine. Those are the projects that are risky and expensive. Instead, the companies have taken the easy path, ordering their scientists to turn out mostly rehashes of medicines already being sold. It's far cheaper to copy a medicine -- tweaking a molecule just enough so it gets its own patent -- than it is to do the years of work needed to find new and better cures.

Donald W. Light, a visiting professor at Stanford University, found in a study published this summer that despite the far lower prices in Europe, drug scientists in those countries continue to discover more medicines than their American colleagues. "Lower European prices seem to be no deterrent to strong research productivity," he wrote.

read more here - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-petersen10-2009oct10,0,2459511.story

'price controls' are bad words.  However, the point of bargaining for better prices, getting  good deal remains.  Why doesn't our government bargain?  Slow down the waste and encourage frugality at drug companies?

Does the globe have another high roller now that the US is broke?

[WhiskeyGirl]

“We’re looking at the possibility of universal health care by about 2010,” New York Times columnist and economics professor Paul Krugman announced on the TV show “Democracy Now!” two years ago.

“The fact is that, in recent years, Medicare administrative costs per beneficiary have substantially exceeded those costs for the private sector. This despite the fact that, as critics note, private insurance is subject to many expenses not incurred by Medicare,” wrote industry expert Robert Book in a paper from The Heritage Foundation.
 
“Moving millions of Americans from private insurance to a Medicare-like program will result in program administrative costs that are higher per person and higher, not lower, for the nation as a whole,” Book added.
           
Another reason Medicare seems more efficient is that it doesn’t spend much time or money cracking down on fraud. Instead, it just shells out for fraudulent claims it never determines to be fraudulent.

Tort Reform?  Bargaining for drugs, services, medical devices? 

Hmmm...if you bargained for these things, you'd lower the amount of taxes to be collected to help pay for all this reform.  Would you rather tax $1 at 10% or $100?

Does Congress and the White House care that taxpayers and future generations will be paying for the tax, the $1 or the $100 through debt?  At what point will the camel's back break?

The Senate’s proposed Baucus bill (which isn’t really a bill, since the Finance Committee hasn’t bothered to write it down) would supposedly provide health insurance to millions more Americans, but nearly half of them would simply be dumped into Medicare. That’s not a solution; it’s merely a way to create a new problem.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55283