Better said than not...

[WhatMoney]

WhatMoney:
I shall believe all you state when: Our new health care lets me keep my BCBS that I can barely pay for, but has good coverage and WILL NOT GO UP IN PRICE due to 'Bammycare.

Well your BCBS coverage has been going up every year already. Why do you think it will decrease now? Is medical cost inflation now negative?

Here is what you said your Medicare Insurance is costing you in another thread:

Here is what I did. I took part B of course, I have BCBS for part D and certain "gap filler" coverage. $96 for part B, $140 for BCBS.

I'm wondering why you don't have a Medicare Advantage w/ Rx policy. There are several companies in your area offering $0 premium this year, including Part d drug coverage. Even the Blue Cross MA PPO plan would cost you $45/month, including Part d drug coverage.

Sounds like you need to investigate some other options to save money.

As to the rest of your fears about the new health plan (assuming we ever get one) lprn is correct. All the things you fear are not in any plan. You need to stop parroting the insurance company fear and confusion talking points. Most of them are just lies and BS.

[JRScott]

And this is the problem. This is the very definition of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

There are two major problems with the logic that liberals try to use in equating health insurance with car insurance. The first is that you only have to buy car insurance if you own a car. With universal health care you can't opt out. The second is that pre-existing conditions should be covered. If we apply that to the auto insurance analogy it would be like insuring a car with significant body damage. No insurer would pay for the damage prior to issuing coverage, yet that is precisely what proponents of universal health care are proposing we taxpayers do. Lastly, auto insurance does not cover every contingency. If you blow your engine due to neglect, you are responsible for it. Shouldn't the same be true of health insurance? Don't take care of your health and pay a price. Yet we keep hearing how we should all pay more to cover everyone, regardless of their willingness to take responsibility for their own health.

Again, there are ways to bring down the cost of healthcare and provide more access without bankrupting our society, as the current legislation under consideration would do. When you have to resort to accounting tricks and deferral of coverage (no benefits til 2014) to make the numbers work you know it's just smoke and mirrors. In the current proposed legislation there are more than 340B in IOUs. We know how well that's working with Social Security. Additionally, they are counting on lowering physicians reimbursement which is already too low, and we know that every time Congress has faced this choice in the past, they failed to lower the reimbursement.

One last point is that the Federal government should stick to their constitutional duties and quit meddling in state affairs. A good resource on this is "The Words We Live By" by Linda Monk.

Very good points

[JRScott]

Well, Hub, I'll take a turn....

Which reliable resource will you believe? Which sources might change your mind since it's obviously already made up?

There are many independent sources that refute every single thing you've listed here, up to and including the actual current language in both the House and Senate versions of the healthcare bill that specifically state that almost everything you've listed here is already forbidden and is very unlikely to come out of the combined House/Senate version.

Frankly the only way we'll know what the real outcomes of the final healthcare bill are....that is, if the Senate and House can ever get themselves together for a joint version that can actually pass both bodies with any effective cost-containment and coverage measures left....is to let time take its course and see whose predictions are correct.

The one thing that every reliable, independent healthcare expert in the US has stated clearly is that we cannot stay on the same path we're on. Something has to be done.

Just because the current system is working for you now doesn't mean it's working for everyone in this country (and I'm talking about everyone that's here legally)....or that in the future, BCBS or any other current health insurance company won't turn on you and their current clients too.

As a practicing RN providing patient care for over 30 years, I've already posted my insider's view on what's happening around the healthcare debate here several times. I agree 100% with the experts - something has to be done. There's no staying with the status quo any longer.

Sometimes you have to go with the odds and hope for the best - just as many of us here did with when we decided to file bankruptcy.

While there is room for improvement, the things that would help the most are not in either the House or Senate bill.

You have to look at it from market forces too, supply and demand. You are increasing demand without increasing supply in the current bills. Thus by necessity you will drive up the cost of health care, not lower it.

There needs to be incentives for folks to enter the doctor and nurse fields. The current bill does not do that. It promises lower payouts to doctors for their services while doing nothing to allay the costs of their education and malpractice insurance. In essence it will choke them causing some that would seek the field to seek other fields now, profoundly increasing the shortage of both. Now of course there could be separate legislation to address this, but then that means more costs and shows its not deficit neutral.

My greatest problem with the National Health Care proposals is we are already broke as a nation. We don't have the money for the programs we already have, and thus certainly can't afford more programs. It's a shame that Washington has never heard of Occam's Razor as if they followed it we wouldn't be in this pickle. I see no reason to increase the rolls of Medicaid and Medicare when they'll both be bankrupt in 5 years. That just means we get folks dependent on it and then pull the rug out from under them down the road creating greater hardship than if they just endured what is now.

At the present rate of spending combined with the unfunded liabilities the National Government has we will default on the national debt within the next decade. We are very close to critical mass economically. There is no sense throwing gasoline on an already burning fire. When we default the Government will no longer have the monies to support the various safety net social programs and those dependent on those programs will be hurt greatly as they are severely curtailed. I do not want to increase their pain by giving a false promise of health care now that we cannot afford just to reelect a bunch of corrupt politicians.

The bills also make assertions that Congress has time and again shown they will not do, such as cuts in Medicare. Thus the bill really isn't deficit neutral. If they could cut Medicare that much why doesn't the bill contain specific cuts to the Program outlying what will be cut rather than just a broad statement of cuts. The most active voting group in the United States is the seniors. Congress more interested in being reelected than doing what is right is not going to cut services to them for fear of losing their seats.