You misstated the bizjournal headline. Also:
:zzz:..The study was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that favors a single-payer system.
However, the study’s authors concede that ... they did not validate their subjects’ insurance status.
The United States stands alone among industrialized nations in not providing health coverage to all of its citizens...
a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology examined outcomes from coronary artery bypass surgery and found that Medicaid status was independently associated with a worse 12-year mortality than for patients with other types of insurance. In fact, Medicaid enrollees had a 54 percent greater 12-year risk-adjusted mortality than patients enrolled in other types of insurance plans.
Medicaid status and late CABG [coronary artery bypass surgery] outcomes. Race did not predict CABG outcomes, but Medicaid status, which is more than four-fold more frequent among African Americans, did with a 54% greater 12-year mortality (HR 1.54;p 0.0047)...
Obama said:The first thing I want to make clear is that if you're happy with the insurance plan you have right now; if the costs you're paying and the benefits you're getting are what you want them to be--then you can keep offering that same plan. Nobody will make you change it.
... [pg 94]House health bill Oct 29 said:1 SEC. 202. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
1 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
3 (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
4 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
5 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
6 on or after the first day of Y1
Do you think that the insurance companies will abandon the lucrative insurance industry? Is it possible that they might work to become (gasp!) competitive and stop doubling their premiums every 6 years or so? The breathless predictions of collapse of our health-care system if reform is initiated are getting really tedious. I guess if my father owned Cigna, I could jump on board to protect my villas in southern France and my yachts...Under these restrictions, I can only imagine the provider would throw up its hands and move on to the exchange, especially given millions will be making moves in the heath market forcing major upheavals in health economics for some time until things stabilize.
Who said anything about abandoning in the industry? I said they will all be forced on the exchange. Do you have any comment on the validity of the President's statement yesterday?Do you think that the insurance companies will abandon the lucrative insurance industry?
Under health insurance reform, we will put an end to the days when an insurance company could use a worker's illness to justify jacking up premiums. We'll crack down on excessive overhead charges by setting strong standards on how much of your premiums can go toward administrative costs and requiring insurers to give you a refund if they violate those standards. It will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most.
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. If you get your insurance through your employer, we'll change the cutoff on how old your kids can be to remain on your plan--we'll raise it to 26 years old. We'll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies-
Generally speaking: it might facilitate the discussion if you pull out the 2-3 concise points you consider salient; either that, or provide an extraordinary reason for us to read the entire text.This is one response from the insurance industry. This letter has been forwarded by thousands of agents to members of Congress this week. Please read the entire letter before posting.
Generally speaking: it might facilitate the discussion if you pull out the 2-3 concise points you consider salient; either that, or provide an extraordinary reason for us to read the entire text.
As someone who has read the details of the current proposal, I have to agree with mheslep. A good way to keep people from reading a post is to make it long.Actually, I think you've just highlighted the main problem with the debate. Everyone wants 2 - 3 talking points and an avoidance of the details.
And consumers. Those "restrictions" are placed on all of us. We will be "restricted" to either buying an expensive comprehensive health care plan that meets the new standards, or nothing at all.In a nutshell, those seem to be the restrictions that will be placed on insurance providers.
Do they compete without the restrictions that are proposed?Although I have heard the rhetoric from many sources, at the "street level", I can tell you there is no way that any insurance company can "compete" with the government payor.
No, OR provide the reason to read all the detail you provided. WhoWee millions of people right letters to Congress. We can't all read everything. Some context and and background is required to pick and choose what to read. Why is your page important? Why is it believable?
I find it fascinating that the proponents of maintaining the status quo choose to ignore the WHO's ranking of our medical system in favor of theoretical arguments against socialism, gov't bureaucracy and anecdotal reports of long que times in Canada.
I think that in itself is quite telling.
I think it's quite telling that you think opponents of the current proposals are "proponents of maintaining the status quo".I find it fascinating that the proponents of maintaining the status quo choose to ignore the WHO's ranking of our medical system in favor of theoretical arguments against socialism, gov't bureaucracy and anecdotal reports of long que times in Canada.
I think that in itself is quite telling.