usa Obamacare and HR

[horse doc]

What is know about how health care "reform" might influence the availability of HR or THR?  Any impact on whether one should hurry to jump to surgery?  Get it while the gettin's good?   

[Dayton96]

A little confused here.  Is this really a question concerning Medicare?  Otherwise, I don't see it impacting the BC/BS coverage I had last year, I have this year, and will have next year.

Mac

[midiowa]

huh?

[hernanu]

Don't want to turn this into a political thing, since that's not our focus here.

I don't see an impact, except in ensuring that coverage is available due to insurers not being able to exclude pre-existing conditions (like OA), not being able to put dollar caps on insurance and by making lower cost insurer pools available to people without insurance. It is targeted to mostly use private insurance and to make it more affordable.

Just my opinion (no one else's)

[horse doc]

Don't want to turn this into a political thing, since that's not our focus here.

I don't see an impact, except in ensuring that coverage is available due to insurers not being able to exclude pre-existing conditions (like OA), not being able to put dollar caps on insurance and by making lower cost insurer pools available to people without insurance. It is targeted to mostly use private insurance and to make it more affordable.



You can make up your mind about it, this article is a good technical description of the legislation.

non political is fine.  It seems like many people have insurance issues today that influence the choice of surgeon at a minimum and i'm wondering if that situation is likely to get better or worse.

[hernanu]

Definitely a good question and worth looking into. The link has one analysis of the legislation, and it seems to address several problems that people would have with insurance companies when dealing with OA:

• Pre existing conditions - this is eliminated by the law.
• Dollar caps on insurance payments - also eliminated.
• Coverage for those of us with lower means, who suffer just as much as we did, but have no outlet.
• Payment of a doctor by outcome rather than volume for Medicare.

These are part of the legislation, and at the least address the issues some of us are concerned about with current operations, or maybe those of us who may need another hip done in the future.

I don't know if it would get better as far as doctor's choice, since the companies providing the services would still be the current companies, so the doctor's choice would be in compliance with their rules.

All the above is my opinion, obviously and based on my reading the particulars of the law, but as anyone else, I could be wrong, in which case I rely on my fellow hippies to help me learn more.

[Baby Barista]

No Hernanu, that's actually a pretty good summary of changes that could affect people with OA. A much better analysis than I've read in other places on this board. I've covered politics for 15 years and I'm astonished at the misinformation people have come to believe as fact on the healthcare debate. Funny... you could swap out "healthcare debate" for "BHR" and the statement would still be true.

[Two4One]

Thanks, Nanu, for a concise summary of the expanded care now available to especially those with pre existing conditions due to Healthcare and Insurance reform.

In fact, all of the reps over at BCBS have outlined their support for the new laws and reforms and have expressed to me personal stories of family members who now can obtain insurance and their strong approval of how the reforms partner the insurance companies into saving money for the consumer.  There's more pro reform that they told me about, but suffice it to say I was astonished at the difference of care and preemptive medicine my insurer is now required to offer me through their representatives that is directly due to Healthcare Reform.

2fer

[obxpelican]

I like the fact that insurance companies cannot have pre existing rules, I do not like the part that forces people to have insurance, even though I believe everyone if they can afford it should have coverage I do not believe it's the government's business for force people to do anything like that.

Personally I think Obama will get his little butt spanked by the Supreme court on the forcing of people to have health care which will effectively destroy obamacare.

The government could do something like pass laws that allow hospitals and doctors to more easily collect from those that chose not to have healthcare and could afford it, the government could also work with insurance companies to accept X amount of pre existing cases each.  In PA we have a pool of high risk auto insurance people where each insurance company takes so many, of course those people are charged very high premiums.

I will agree, we need changes to our healthcare, however I do not want to see the Canadian based system here. 

BTW, I personally have disdain for both parties, I think Obama is an idiot just like I thought Bush was an idiot, just for different reasons.


Chuck

[Two4One]

Good post, Chuck!

I haven't been as plugged in politically lately, so if the reform actually does require ALL to buy insurance just like we are ALL (in most states) required to buy auto insurance, well that benefits the super wealthy greedy people in back rooms who are pulling the strings of all their political puppets.  It sure doesn't benefit young healthy people who have no intrinsic requirement to pay to keep their neighbor alive.  Without insurance, the message is plain - let others die while we eat cake, but you know that's only my opinion.

I care for neither party as nearly every elected person who goes to Washington comes back a millionaire from unfair and corrupt insider trading and/or nefarious shady deals to reward them for voting by proxy for their masters.  Class warfare is over; the super rich Buffets, Gates, and Murdochs, of the world have won, especially when the bought and paid for Supreme Court voted corporations to be 'people', and thus the Super Pacs are born.

Well, back to my little life, but I'm choosing to stand up instead of bending over, and perhaps we will have our American Spring.

2fer

[hernanu]

I do agree that personal choice and decision is the most important part of belonging to a good society. I grew up (until I was 10) in a dictatorship, and saw plenty of abuse of power by a government.

In my case it was a right wing government, with troops clearing out universities by gunfire, TV anchors being dragged off the air, my cousin having to hide under a car from police death squads (he and my grandmother argued quite often - he was a socialist, she was a centrist). So the ability to make my own choices is treasured to me. It could easily be a left wing dictatorship (which is what is there now), so to my eyes it's just the same devil changing colors.

I think that in any good society, we accept some limits to what we choose to do so that we can all profit. I drive on the right here, so I don't interfere with folks coming the other way (this worked against me in Bermuda). I can choose, through my votes and support for different parts of the system which constraints I can live with and which not. If my preferences lose, I'm not happy but I respect the process.

Given my earlier experience with totalitarianism, I have a healthy disrespect for the sticky parts of politics, but have seen the alternative and it is bleak. So I'm willing to compromise on some things I may like to produce a whole that is better than before.

I think this is what is happening with this legislation (again my opinion only), in that at least it is on the table and the issues with large insurance companies holding a huge stick and eating the carrot, the crushing load of uninsured people using emergency rooms for care and the marginalization of people who have health problems due to their cutting into insurance companies profits are being addressed.

I supported Obama in his run, and still do, despite thinking he's too conservative in some things (economy) and not conservative enough in others (defense). I am happy to see this effort begin in health care, though - for so long it was suppressed and is now being dealt with without being suffocated by the health care lobbies. I see many things I like and some I really don't in this legislation, but we have time to make it better through feelings like yours, Chuck - I like people who stand up and try to fix the issues instead of trying to put the whole problem under the rug, and then try to convince everyone that the lump is flat.

I do agree that the idea of $95 penalty for not having insurance (or 1% of income) may be a bad precedent, but the establishment of affordable insurance pools, the ability of States to set up their own insurance programs and be excluded from the Federal requirements and the ability to waive this fee due to religious beliefs are reasonable alternatives. The support of preventative care and the overall stress of patients rights is something I agree with, so I'll take the limit while keeping a close eye on the whole deal. Politicians, surprisingly enough have screwed up before.

Sorry to ramble, your post got me to thinking, Chuck.

[Luanna]

Good discussion. I am not a politically focused person but I am enjoying the discussion about this topic. Interesting. No one really likes to be forced to do anything and yet we all want the best coverage possible at the least cost. Governments whether right, left, or in between that overreach usually do so thinking that we the people aren't capable of making good decisions for ourselves and need to have decisions made for us.

Don't have any solutions. If I did I'd run for political office. 

Luanna

[johnd_emd]

I believe a socialistic country would be called a "Left Wing" government.  Better already look what flags they're flying at democrat party headquarters:  It's an American Flag with obama's face on it.  "Heil Hitler"

And, those who support and belive much of the rhetoric of the obook a took a dooky administration and the whims of those pulling the strings of the administration better look more into the obama health care mandate; specifically who gets to call the shots.  Who gets to make the decisions on what's deemed a medical necessity and what's not.  Who get's to make the decision on whom gets care and who does not.  This is a very evil "mandate", and the people and organizations pushing it are very evil people.  And, "Mandates" come from a "Left Wing" government that base their operations and methods through forced, socialistic practices. History has taught us that.

Mainly, the decisions of the physicians are removed.  Decisions will be made by the government on who gets treatment and who doesn't. 

This is what's been happening in Canada for years.  Patients get put on waiting lists while the goverment makes a decision on whether the patient will receive care or not; regardless of what the physician requests and prescribes.  Just because "Wikipedia" gives a sugar coated desecription doesn't mean that's what's in the real package.  Better open up the whole package to see what's really in it. 

(Tried to post "external" links as references but was not allowed to.  Don't know how hernanu got to post her external link to wikipedia.  Site would allow me to post any)

[midiowa]

obamacare is a joke.   the insurance co's  with have to take all in future but dont think it wont come without a price! they will set there prices. another hippie on east coast paying  over 24,000 year for bc/bs. tell me how thats justified. anyone?

[Pat Walter]

Folks - I am getting all kinds complaints from both the left and right.  I like to allow free speech, but I think we will go back to hip resurfacing to keep my email box and reported posts from filling up.  Seems to be a lot of upset folks over this thread, so I will just lock it down and hope for the best.

Sorry.

Pat

[obxpelican]

Ahhh Pat, you mean I can't call Obama and Bush weenies?    <jk>   


Oh well.

I agree with El Hefe though, we must keep this on track with hip resurfacing.

Chuck