Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[Jerry_Miah]

Which is exactly my point. We have only brought one plan as far as real rules and the plan that has been put forth is garbage. Which of the idiots is it that said we can’t see what’s in it until after it was passed? What kind of insanity is that?!?

I don’t understand what you are saying. The ACA is a million times better than no plan at all. I just point out that given the history of the US for over three decades, this is the best we can do. There is no proof that it’s a bad plan; it’s puts the onus on businesses, but that is the free-market solution. Single-payer would avoid that.

If you are against both the ACA and single-payer, what are you for? The ACA is the conservative solution to the problem, single-payer/nationalized health care system plan that all other industrialized, civilized countries have. If you have a problem with both, then what?

 

[Corki]

I don’t understand what you are saying. The ACA is a million times better than no plan at all. I just point out that given the history of the US for over three decades, this is the best we can do. There is no proof that it’s a bad plan; it’s puts the onus on businesses, but that is the free-market solution. Single-payer would avoid that.

I don’t think it IS better than no plan at all. It is a plan that has runaway costs, lots of unanswered questions and, at this moment in time has at least some provisions that are unconstitutional. Not exactly progress.

It does not put the onus on businesses. Actually businesses will do pretty well - at least while unemployment remains high. They can just eliminate employer paid insurance pay the fine and have a bunch more money to add to the bottom line. The “onus” is on the taxpayers first and foremost and then on the hardworking Americans who will see their benefits either slashed or taxed.

And single payer would just compound the problems that exist in the ACA since it would hand over complete control to the government.

If you are against both the ACA and single-payer, what are you for? The ACA is the conservative solution to the problem, single-payer/nationalized health care system plan that all other industrialized, civilized countries have. If you have a problem with both, then what?

As I said earlier in this thread, I am for a serious overhaul of our current system that keeps what is working for the vast majority of Americans and expands the safety net for those who have been unable to have health insurance. I am “for” a Constitutional plan that will not push the deficit into overdrive and which respects the rights of everyone.

And I am sick to death of the false dichotomy that says that we have to choose between ACA and single payer.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/148525_456671280781_502655781_5347307_6312211_n.jpg

 

[Nate13]

Fun fact: 35 States already had a system in place to help people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance through a State sponsored public option. The “preexisting conditions” part has already been addressed by most States so if that goes away most will not miss out. If your State doesn’t have it maybe you should focusing on that issue at the State level.

My response to the idea that kids are covered till they are 26? No one wants their kids at home that long. If anything it should be tied to how long kids are in school. Why would it be smart to create an incentive for people not to get out of there parents basements and find a job?

Most States and localities also have programs to give children health insurance as well at little to no cost.

 

[pismopal]

“Government gives benefits to benefit the giver, not the receiver.” – George Soros [before he went commie on us.]

" Government gives benefits for the voters to benefit the pro-government party, the Democrats, at the expense of the tax payers…the 50% who actually pay income taxes." — Pismopal 2012

 

[Jerry_Miah]

" Government gives benefits for the voters to benefit the pro-government party, the Democrats, at the expense of the tax payers…the 50% who actually pay income taxes." — Pismopal 2012

“Beware glib quotes with sweeping generalizations and tortured factoids”
-Jerry Miah 2012

 

[markomalley]

Fun fact: 35 States already had a system in place to help people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance through a State sponsored public option. The “preexisting conditions” part has already been addressed by most States so if that goes away most will not miss out. If your State doesn’t have it maybe you should focusing on that issue at the State level.

My response to the idea that kids are covered till they are 26? No one wants their kids at home that long. If anything it should be tied to how long kids are in school. Why would it be smart to create an incentive for people not to get out of there parents basements and find a job?

Most States and localities also have programs to give children health insurance as well at little to no cost.

Another fun fact: the Obamacare High Risk Pool (which was supposed to provide insurance to all of those who weren’t eligible for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions), as of June of last year, only had 21,554 enrollees. That was over a year following the passage of Obamacare.

The reason cited was the high premiums. This, despite the fact that the Obamacare law pumped $5 billion into the program.

On the other hand, the various 35 states who have their own programs have a combined enrollment of 200,000.

Assuming that the Obamacare High Risk Pool has no takers from states that already have their own high risk pool, we can discern that the average state-run high risk pool has 5,714 participants in it, while participation in the Obamacare High Risk Pool only has 1,436 participants (in the 15 states that don’t have their own). Naturally, the number of participants in the Obamacare pool are from more than those 15 states that don’t have their own…so the actual state-by-state average would even be lower.

Facts sure are fun.

 

[markomalley]

Fun fact: 35 States already had a system in place to help people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance through a State sponsored public option. The “preexisting conditions” part has already been addressed by most States so if that goes away most will not miss out. If your State doesn’t have it maybe you should focusing on that issue at the State level.

My response to the idea that kids are covered till they are 26? No one wants their kids at home that long. If anything it should be tied to how long kids are in school. Why would it be smart to create an incentive for people not to get out of there parents basements and find a job?

Most States and localities also have programs to give children health insurance as well at little to no cost.

Here’s another fun fact: did you realize, according to IRS Publication 526, doctors are not allowed to write off free health care given to poor people as a charitable contribution? Even if they do so under the aegis of a nonprofit organization?

While, of course, nobody is allowed to write off his time as a contribution, one would think that the doctor could write off the wages he spent on providing such services and the supplies used in supplying those services…but NO.

Despite that, while I can’t speak for all doctors, I know that our family physician and our family dentist still provide free care for people who aren’t able to pay them for one reason or another.

On the other hand, physicians (and dentists) are able to write off unpaid medical/dental expenses as bad debts (only after taking collection actions).

I wonder what would happen if the Internal Revenue Code was modified to allow medical providers to provide care on a charitable basis…I sure don’t claim that such a thing would solve all the world’s problems, but I wonder how many physicians and dentists would take advantage of such a thing…and how many patients might be able to be treated on such a basis?

 

[Nate13]

@markomalley
The thing about it is though that even if the other side could admit that all of these things did properly address the problem and got care to those who needed it, that wouldn’t fix it for them. When they say having healthcare is a “right” what they really mean is that the government must provide it for everyone. This of course does not follow just because you consider something a right.

What I would be interested to know is if they are willingly to apply that same logic to firearms. The “right to bear arms” is a right that is actually in our Bill of Rights. Thus based on their reasoning I think the government should have to provide firearms free of charge to anyone who can’t afford to buy one. If someone doesn’t have the money to buy a firearm are they not being denied their right to bear arms? That seems to be the line of reasoning being applied to healthcare.

 

[utah_rose]

The problem I have when you say everyone has a “right” to healthcare is that when you say that you really mean we have a right to a federal government run healthcare insurance. If we are talking about food though, then the solution is food stamps or if we are talking about general well being of people in affording somewhere to live and basic amenities we are talking about Welfare.

Why not create similar programs to handle those who don’t have health insurance? No one thought we needed to bring everyone under the thumb of the government to get food to those who needed it, or to get welfare checks to people did they? I have a problem with people who lie to themselves saying that the only way to get health insurance to those who don’t have it is to enforce a federal government run healthcare system on the country and take control of everyone’s health insurance plans. If Sebelius can dictate that every health insurance policy whether public or private has to completely cover the pill and sterilizations, the government has control of every policy whether its considered private or not.

If you have a disability, that should be taken care of with SS or Medicare. Our Churches can serve the poor otherwise. For example, we in conjunction with the city have an excellent food bank, and run a thrift store. There’s enough charitable people around to really help the poor. Once you get the government into (food, etc.) you give them the right to control what you eat, how much you should receive, etc. There’s no “free lunch” when it comes to the government. Control is the issue.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Of course, I’m not holding my breath because the important thing is that they are EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLL – and we won’t let facts get in the way of our pre-supposition, will we?

P.S. Don’t go without chocolate either; the wait will kill you.

… you have yet to advance anything other than an advocacy for nationalizing health care. …

Any way you look at it, a nationalized heath care system is one giant HMO, and there is a problem with HMOs: they are a contractor that you pay in advance, hence the more they spend treating your illness, the less profit they make. That’s how you get a person with swollen glands being given antibiotics and no screening for cancer. [You can’t cure cancer with antibiotics, so you can guess his fate.] Since government programs always underestimate how much they will cost, they are constantly under pressure to cut spending. How does the government HMO cut spending? The same way: deny benefits and hope you will die before too long.

 

[gtrenewed]

Why don’t you tell me the numbers? You make broad brush statements that sound oh-so-conspiratorial, well, why don’t you tell me how much was spent on executive compensation…lobbyists…monuments to selves…and so on.

All of these companies are publicly traded. So those numbers are in their 10-K. And political contributions must be registered with the FEC. So you should have no problem telling me exactly how much was spent.

I’ll give you a little clue, friend. Your normal health insurance company’s expenses break down as follows: 83-90% is paid out to providers, 8-15% are operating expenses, and whatever is left over is profit.

A very small portion of the operating expenses is executive compensation. An even smaller portion of the operating expenses is lobbying / political contributions. But you can take a look at any company’s 10-K and find that out for yourself.

Of course, I’m not holding my breath because the important thing is that they are EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLL – and we won’t let facts get in the way of our pre-supposition, will we?

As far as the rest of your post, when you decide to actually present a cogent argument to back up your assertions, then maybe it will be worth discussing it with you. Otherwise, you are simply appealing to the emotions of vulnerable people. Exactly the type of thing Leo XIII warned about in Quod Apostolici Muneris. Should I come to the same type of conclusion that the Holy Father did in his encyclical? You tell me.

You complain about rescission. But you don’t cite any numbers to show how horrible a problem it is. You could have easily done a little research to find out that United Health, for example, rescinded 20,000 policies in 2009 due to fraud. Horrible. Evil. Unmentionable. Of course, you would likely not normalize that number to inform the reader that they insure 74,000,000 people (thus, a rescission rate of 0.02 percent). How likely is it that 0.02 percent of the people in this country are going to lie to cover something up?

Don’t get me wrong. I think that health insurance has had a horribly deleterious effect on this country as a whole. I don’t like health insurance whatsoever. But, again, you have yet to advance anything other than an advocacy for nationalizing health care. And even that you haven’t bothered to provide any kind of a fact-based argument for.

So when you are actually ready to discuss, as opposed to rant, please let me know.

Hey Mark, I am not ranting but quoting real life examples of real people. The percentages that you quote make it seem insignificant - until it happens to you, through no fault of your own. And it is happening to over 40 million Americans. For the rest that have coverage, it is much too expensive for people 50+ who have paid for it all their lives. This is mainly due to inefficiencies of the entire health care delivery system.

I never advocated for nationalizing health care. But since it is a large part of our economy I think it takes government to start the process. I have been aware of the problem since the 80’s when I saw corporate health insurance rates double every year until my boss self insured the company. Also since the 70’s both republicans and democrats have espoused desire to do something about the high cost but no one did anything concrete until Clinton set up a panel to bring about a solution but was shot down. The market just does not have the will to bring about the needed change just like the financial markets.

I have said in previous posts that there are more than a few ideas out there on how to fix the system. One such example is Consumer-Driven-Health-Care, CDHC. In this model the current players don’t disappear or go out of business but become more efficient by focusing on successful disease outcomes instead of just continually treating disease in a vacuum and this results in lower costs. One such book is “Who Killed HealthCare?” by Regina Herzlinger. I have read others.

The problem of the uninsured have grown continually and will continue to grow until the numbers become even greater. I have been on the board of directors of a free clinic that serviced mostly the working poor. People working jobs with no benefits and their pay too low to afford insurance or regular doctor visits. These were not slackers looking for a hand out but hard working people. Thankfully we had doctors who volunteered but it was hard to get their time for the clinic because they were so busy. We had to turn away people.

You feel quite comfortable behind your numbers but I can’t get comfortable because of what I have seen and personally experienced. I am not of the left but have been on the right politically until politicians used fear to try to control the issues. If we as a country don’t discuss rationally and in a bi-partisian way and take some action to fix the system, it cannot get better. I find myself more of an independent now looking on both sides for solutions.

I cannot say to 40+ million people “be warm and well fed” (biblical example) and do nothing. If they are too insignificant a number to concern you then more is the pity.

 

[gtrenewed]

Another fun fact: the Obamacare High Risk Pool (which was supposed to provide insurance to all of those who weren’t eligible for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions), as of June of last year, only had 21,554 enrollees. That was over a year following the passage of Obamacare.

The reason cited was the high premiums. This, despite the fact that the Obamacare law pumped $5 billion into the program.

On the other hand, the various 35 states who have their own programs have a combined enrollment of 200,000.

Assuming that the Obamacare High Risk Pool has no takers from states that already have their own high risk pool, we can discern that the average state-run high risk pool has 5,714 participants in it, while participation in the Obamacare High Risk Pool only has 1,436 participants (in the 15 states that don’t have their own). Naturally, the number of participants in the Obamacare pool are from more than those 15 states that don’t have their own…so the actual state-by-state average would even be lower.

Facts sure are fun.

Here is another “fun fact” from personal experience. My states high risk pool premiums were over 3 times higher than the federal pool. Additionally, if you had a pre-existing condition that condition was not covered for 12 months but the federal pool covered it from day one. So your assumption seems a stretch.

 

[pismopal]

“Beware glib quotes with sweeping generalizations and tortured factoids”
-Jerry Miah 2012

I get it that you don’t like my quote. I am just wondering what part of the quote ( which was actually meant as a humorous response to an earlier quote and post but humor always requires some truth or it isn’t funny ) do you want to challenge? The Democrat Party is not the party of big government? Only approximately %50 of Americans pay income tax? Government handouts are not meant to ingratiate voters? Those are facts and not “sweeping generalities”…sadly enough.

 

[markomalley]

Hey Mark, I am not ranting…

You are not ranting. Therefore I am responding. Thank you.

First of all, my comments were in response to an issue of rescission, not about 40+ million people being uninsured.

Secondly, you are absolutely right about the excessive costs of insurance. I agree they are excessive. But this is where the numbers come in and are so important. If you look at the financial statements of publicly traded insurers, you find that they are not being Simon Legree…they are dealing with increased costs and are passing that on to the consumers by way of higher premiums. Which, admittedly, are unaffordable for many of the working poor.

I would like to briefly look at the reasons behind these costs and then consider how Obamacare does NOT deal with them and, in fact, how any nationalized insurance scheme will not deal with them…at least with how business is conducted in this country.

I don’t know if you currently have any type of health insurance or not. If you do, I would ask that you go in your files and break out 5-10 Explanation of Benefit statements that you’ve gotten from your insurer…hopefully from different providers. If you would, please note the amount that the provider claimed versus the amount that the insurance company allowed for the benefit. Chances are that on the majority of those EOBs, the provider claimed more than what the insurer allowed for a given procedure. Surely the provider already knows what the insurer will pay, so why did he/she claim more?

Insurance companies crunch a lot of numbers as part of their business. They will pay providers what they claim to be a reasonable amount. This is generally a percentage of the average of all amounts claimed for a given procedure code. So it’s in the provider’s interest to always claim more for a given procedure than what is allowed so that this average moves up over time. Then that drives premium costs up.

That right there is where the real evil of the situation comes in: medical finance is based upon a system of diagnostic reference groups and associated procedure codes. You diagnose a patient with a certain DRG (well, ICD now) and then the computer allows certain procedure codes to be billed against that DRG. An allowable cost is assigned to each procedure (based, in part, upon the locality of the physician). It’s all based upon the math of the situation.

Interestingly, do you know who developed this system? Medicare (don’t believe me? look up DRGs for yourself). It was developed in order to reduce fraud that had cropped up since its inception (because, unfortunately, some people are lying little ***** of ****. Not all, not most, but just enough to ruin it for all of us).

The real evil of the situation is that it (for the most part) destroys the free market for the medical industry. Most consumers, the 85% who have health insurance of some type, don’t really care whether their doctor charges the insurance $100, $150, or $1,500 for a 15 minute appointment. They care that their copay is $10 or $25 for the visit. They don’t care that the prescription that the doctor wrote out costs $10 per pill (2X day for 30 days = $600). They care that their copay is $10 at the pharmacy. They don’t make their decisions based upon any semblance of a normal economic model.

If they have to get their car repaired, they absolutely will care if the mechanic charges $100 or $200 per hour for the same service.

So rather than having the normal free-market controls that exist almost everyplace else, we have some sort of corporatism that removes consumers from the equation. Except those who are wealthy enough to self-insure or those who can’t afford the premiums for the insurance (and sure can’t afford to self-insure).

This brings me to the biggest fallacy of Obamacare: cost savings. The same methodology, developed by Medicare and used by Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance, will also be used by Obamacare as well. The only way that something like this won’t happen is if they nationalize all doctors and force them to work for a salary in facilities funded by government appropriations. But then you run into other problems. Like resource constraints because of insufficient budgets.

But, but, but…Obamacare will make sure that we don’t pay too much for our premiums, right?

Not exactly. Right now, my employer-provided insurance costs me $285 per month (my share – employee + family) – that’s $3,420 per year for my share. It costs that no matter whether I make $20,000 per year or $100,000 per year. It costs that no matter whether I have one kid or a dozen kids. Under Obamacare, if I don’t have employer-based health insurance, I will be liable to pay $8,400 per year ($700 per month) if I make $88,000 per year and have a four-person family. If I make $44,000 per year, the costs go down to $2,700 per year…so I start to see a little bit of savings. On the other hand, if I make $88,000.01 per year, I get no subsidy and the insurance company can charge me whatever it wants…so I might be liable for $14,000 per year – the average entire employer+employee cost of a group health policy today (that’s about $1,200 per month). Obviously, it would not be in my interest to get a raise unless that raise was from $88k to $102k at one fell swoop. And I don’t know too many folks who will be able to exact a $14k raise from their bosses at one time LOL.

SO what do you do to fix it? in my book, I’d say phase out insurance companies altogether. Replace them with medical savings accounts that can grow over time. Incentivize businesses to help contributions to those accounts as well as self-employed people. Provide assistance for those who are truly in need to allow them to mainstream into this system. But something needs to be done to restore free-market controls to the system. We can see over the past five decades what has happened with those controls removed.

 

[mitex]

Personally I think we need to cut the military by 50% and reinvest the savings into a pro-life government run universal healthcare system like the ones in Poland and Malta.

Your Bishops support universal healthcare (although that doesn’t seem to deter the free market yahoos )!

 

[markomalley]

Here is another “fun fact” from personal experience. My states high risk pool premiums were over 3 times higher than the federal pool. Additionally, if you had a pre-existing condition that condition was not covered for 12 months but the federal pool covered it from day one. So your assumption seems a stretch.

But your fun fact still doesn’t answer the question: if there are so many uninsured because of lack of eligibility, one would think that they’d sign up in a heartbeat.

Or were the premiums too high?

People were clamoring for this, yet, it seems like very few were actually interested (really and truly at both the state and federal levels) when offered. Insurance is, by design, pooling risk. The high premiums you speak of are a product of that shared risk…even with government subsidies.

As for the 12 month waiting period, that was a product of the HIPAA law passed during the 90s.

I, again, ask you to think about this a little bit, sans emotion. There are a whole lot of people out there who are not as honorable as you are and who will try their darnedest to game the system. I am certain that you would never delay signing up for health insurance until you were sick or until you found you needed some surgery. I am absolutely certain that you would sign up for insurance immediately when it is available and keep paying for it as long as you are financially able to do so.

Having said that, I am certain that both of us know people who would do exactly that. Some people might sign up for insurance just before they need it and drop it as soon as they no longer need it for the condition they were concerned with.

If you don’t exclude pre-existing conditions for a period of time (12 months, per the HIPAA law), then how do you protect the other members of the risk group from having to absorb those excessive costs? Remember that the insurance company, absolutely guaranteed, will not eat the cost themselves. And that is whether the insurer is for profit or not-for-profit. That cost will absolutely be passed on by way of increased premiums.

I would actually be interested to hear how you would prevent such a thing from happening? (I assume that since we are trying to have an adult conversation that you won’t take the childish tack of suggesting that it be taken out of the CEO’s salary or the like. After all, any thinking adult would recognize that the CEO could work for free and that might cover 10 cases of cancer out of a population of 74 million insured).

 

[markomalley]

Personally I think we need to cut the military by 50% and reinvest the savings into a pro-life government run universal healthcare system like the ones in Poland and Malta.

Your Bishops support universal healthcare (although that doesn’t seem to deter the free market yahoos )!

The Holy Father has consistently called for universal access to health care. That is distinctly different than government-provided medicine. I have yet to see a Magisterial document that states that the teaching authority of the Church mandates that a government provide such service.

Perhaps you can educate me and provide me some sort of reference that has such authority. (Note: I caution you to read Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos very carefully before wasting either of our times linking some press release issued by a USCCB staffer)

 

[Brendan]

Personally I think we need to cut the military by 50% and reinvest the savings into a pro-life government run universal healthcare system like the ones in Poland and Malta.

Your Bishops support universal healthcare (although that doesn’t seem to deter the free market yahoos )!

That is because it is possible for Poland and Malta to offer universal health care. Currently, in the US, it is not.

As long as abortion exists as a legal ‘right’, we cannot have universal health care. Abortion, by definition, excludes the unwanted unborn from health care.

We see that in Pope John Paul II’s Letter to the lay faithful

1. In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defense and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights --** for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – *is false and illusory ***if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

• Pope John Paul II - Christifidelis Laici.

As long as abortion is legal, the right to health care, the right to work, is false and illusory. So we, as Catholics must first obtain that most basis of rights, the right to life for all.

 

[stevegravy]

Personally I think we need to cut the military by 50% and reinvest the savings into a pro-life government run universal healthcare system like the ones in Poland and Malta.

Your Bishops support universal healthcare (although that doesn’t seem to deter the free market yahoos )!

Yea, but what is universally laughable about that is they don’t defining what qualifies as health care. The care we might receive today in a US top tier hospital, i.e. like Cleveland Clinic, or the care received in a third world clinic. Quality carries a price tag. They are not to specific.