When people actually read the bill...

[impik]

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/19/putting-some-of-the-reform-back-into-health-reform/

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/19/surprisingly-good-policy-on-healthcare-reform.aspx

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-senate-bill-no-annual-and-lifetime-limits

[ZombieHorde]

1. ...they will post links without comment.

[soleft]

4. lol

[kiva]

6. .

:rofl:

[Cha]

24. Delete..changed my mind..decided not to be a

freakin' smartass.

[silverweb]

2. That makes too much sense.

And "the bill" is nowhere near ready for the President's desk yet, either.

All the drama and hysteria have been giving me headaches, which is why I avoid those threads and focus on rational ones like this.


Thanks. :hi:

[pscot]

7. It's so much more dramatic

to clutch your pearls, scream single payer at the top of your lungs and faint dead away.

[silverweb]

16. I *would* much prefer single payer.

And I fully believe that we'll keep working towards it.

In the meantime, though, I'm just too old for all that reflexive dramatic shit -- and I don't wear pearls. :D

[Cha]

25. Yeah, and even if I did,,

I wouldn't clutch them over this.:)

[mzmolly]

3. K and R

Thanks. :hi:

[AVID]

5. K&R

[Undercurrent]

8. K&R

And a bump for posting this! :fistbump:

[lapfog_1]

9. Yes, Harry added a provision to use a "review board"

to try to reign in the base costs of health care IF those costs rise faster than Medicare (always a trigger somewhere).

However, in creating the MLRs for insurance industry in the same bill, there is now incentive for costs to INCREASE.

That will put enormous pressure on a review board (which, and I believe the Time article) will ALWAYS be in action (triggered).

Doctors and hospitals will feel pressure from insurance companies to increase spending (because increased spending will now be the only way to increase profits under MLR). The review board will be busy trying to deny spending increases by TAKING THE PLACE of the current practice by the industry of "claims adjuster" (i.e. claims denier).

And THAT my friends, is what the tea baggers where whining about all summer. The government coming between you and your doctor, and rationing care.

Your doctor will tell you that you need an MRI. Your insurance company will say "yeah, we think you need an MRI, but the GOVERNMENT as part of the standard treatment the problem that we think you have, has denied an MRI as part of cost containment".

[levander]

31. What is an MLR?

An MLR is a review board?

However, in creating the MLRs for insurance industry in the same bill, there is now incentive for costs to INCREASE.

How do the MLRs incenticize cost increases?

to try to reign in the base costs of health care IF those costs rise faster than Medicare (always a trigger somewhere)

And, they've significantly cut how much Medicare costs will increase, so we know they medical providers aren't going to have much room to make any money.

[gratefultobelib]

10. Well, how refreshing. Thank you!

[Better Today]

11. Some of the swampland, . .. it is worth reading... 'course it may be being flavored

by Wyden on the TV nearby and he is sounding pretty positive about things.

"Reid's earlier version would not have allowed the board to act unless Medicare spending grew faster than overall health care spending--something that pretty much doesn't happen these days. The new version is signficantly stronger, thanks in no small part to pressure from the Obama White House and a group of reform-minded freshman Senators. It would trigger action from the board if growth in health care spending exceeds that of Medicare spending, which is pretty much guaranteed to be the case.

All of that sounds pretty technical, but getting the details right is the difference between a health care bill that will work and one that won't, economists say. And many experts have been worried about the direction the bill appeared to be headed.

There's also another potentially significant improvement buried down in fine print of the bill: The new version expands the pilot project that tests the concept of "bundling" health care payments--an effort to get doctors and hospitals and other health care providers to work together more closely by paying them with a lump sum to treat a specific condition, rather than for paying each one of them according to how many services they provide. The idea here is both to save money and to get them to focus on which treatment is most likely to be best for the patient. Health care experts believe this is one of the single most important moves that could bring about a transformation of our health care system.

Even more important, Reid's new version would allow the Health and Human Services Secretary to expand the pilot program nationally, if it proves to be successful. Under the earlier bill, she would have had to come back to Congress for permission--something that, given the clout of the medical industry on Capitol Hill, would pretty much guarantee that it would never happen. "

[HughMoran]

12. No infantile ad hominem attack from me

I'm open to all inputs - unlike the whining simpletons who are yipping is up like the flaming cowards that they are at the top of the thread.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Why did I have the insane notion that this whole controversy was about providing BETTER HEALTH CARE

for Americans....and not just bringing down the cost of medical care. While they are certainly not mutually exclusive, I would have preferred the emphasis on improving HEALTH CARE, and then it would seem the natural result would be a lowering of the costs of health care. Once we are all healthier, and have access to PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, the costs would go down.

When did the primary reason for all this become to simply diminish to cost of health care?????
If the only concern is to diminish the cost of health care, the answer would seem obvious.
Health care would be much less costly if the insurance companies did have to make a profit from everything that is done.
SO why not just make it all non-profit? Why should those sharks be getting rich off peoples' illnesses and tragedies?

I want universal, accessible health care for everyone. I have no interest whatsoever in preserving the profits of the insurance companies and the salaries of their lobbyists.


"The preliminary analysis suggests that the new bill would actually be more effective than the previous version in reining in health care costs in the long term."

[mzmolly]

14. I like the no annual and life time limits and the credit to FDL

and others in the last link. :hi:

[lapfog_1]

15. Except, of course, there are annual limits.

from the managers mark up of the Senate bill - page 1:

21 ‘‘(2) ANNUAL LIMITS PRIOR TO 2014.—With re22
spect to plan years beginning prior to January 1,
23 2014, a group health plan and a health insurance
24 issuer offering group or individual health insurance
25 coverage may only establish a restricted annual limit

1 on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or
2 beneficiary with respect to the scope of benefits that
3 are essential health benefits under section 1302(b)
4 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
5 as determined by the Secretary. In defining the term
6 ‘restricted annual limit’ for purposes of the pre
ceding sentence, the Secretary shall ensure that
access to needed services is made available with a
9 minimal impact on premiums.

[mzmolly]

22. PRIOR to 2014

yes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Annual limits for more than four years. I've seen it written here that 45,000 die each year from

not having insurance. How many will die due to "health care reform" that sets a four year term for annual caps?

[mzmolly]

29. The new version of the bill has stripped the annual caps

from what I gather reading the OP?

[IndianaGreen]

17. Obama: But I'm pleased that recently added amendments have made this landmark bill even stronger.

December 19, 2009
President Obama on Health Care Developments
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 19, 2009

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON HEALTH CARE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Diplomatic Reception Room

1:42 P.M. EST

As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added amendments have made this landmark bill even stronger.

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/19/president-obama-on-health-care-developments/

Let's refer to this bill as ObamaLube, because that's what the working class will get out of it: BOHICA with lubrication!

[inna]

23. Bush could not get away with this monstrosity of a legislation, in his wildest dreams.

Hold on to your seats, "Entitlement Reform" comes next.

[QC]

28. Only Nixon could go to China... n/t

[angee_is_mad]

18. kick

and keep kicking!!!!

:fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump:

[tandot]

19. K & R

[treestar]

20. It's actually not be to get medical people's opinions

They will be involved after all.

We are all involved in some field, and if legislation were to impact it, our opinions would be worth something. The hopelessly cynical would say it's just to line our pockets, but then there is something they do for a living, too. If you are involved you know things.

[Parker CA]

21. K&R!!

[BeyondGeography]

27. Even then, there's no guarantees

Diarist calls Franken a dunce, then is soundly de-bunked:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/20/817184/-Al-FrankenIncompetent-or-worse-

[SpartanDem]

30. kick