Thanks Obama, Change in insurance, losing Rx coverage

from here:

www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/03/03/prsa0303.htm

AMA Prez said...
"This tells the story again: Tort reform works, and this just reaffirms it for the umpteenth time," said AMA Immediate Past President William G. Plested III, MD. "In this day and age of evidence-based medicine, we ought to have evidence-based tort reform."

He pointed to California and Texas as examples where a $250,000 noneconomic damage cap has kept doctors' premiums down. According to 2007 data from the Medical Liability Monitor, which tracks insurers' medical liability rates nationwide, Texas posted some of the lowest rates in the country for ob-gyns.

"The fact remains that states with effective caps have much lower premiums than similar states without caps, and that difference will be maintained as rates go up or down elsewhere," said Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Assn. of America

And from the WSJ article:

CBO Director said...
In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president's health law over the next decade. McKinsey's survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more.

So that's 2 estimates from non-partisan sources, one estimates 35 million will lose employer coverage (from former congressional budget office head) and one from McKinsey that estimates 78 million will lose employer based coverage.

I think it's pretty well established that Obamacare will subsidize insurance purchased in the exchanges for low to middle income individuals and families.

I think everyone realizes the system needed to be reformed, but all Obamacare does is push more people into the broken system, and then throws trillions of dollars of taxpayers money into the money pit too.

The president of the doctor lobby and Douglas Holtz-Eakin are non-partison ?

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is a former CBO director that currently runs a conservative think tank that studies health issues. His last job working for someone else was as John McCain's adviser on economic and HEALTH CARE issues. He is quoting the same push poll as the opinion writer in the WSJ. The actual CBO studies all contradict his positions on healthcare.

"I think it's pretty well established that Obamacare will subsidize insurance purchased in the exchanges for low to middle income individuals and families."

They will pay something instead of paying nothing and going to the emergency room when they need a doctor? Good!

The broken system is a creation of healthcare provider and insurance lobbies. We are all trapped in it now. They failed and need to be kicked to the curb.

AZYooper said...
I should have said I was on 9 colazal a day also. I made a mistake on cost, it is $582.97 with my $60 copay for 90 days or about $195 per month

Check with a local pharmacist to verify the $180/month cost for colazal. It is possible that my insurance company lies to me about what they pay for colazal, I suppose. I am on a 90 day mailorder with Walgreens as required by my plan. I assume that is a heavily discounted price not what you would pay in cash at walgreens.

I take 8 Colazal per day, and my copay is $45 ($15/mo) for a three month supply, if I have them mail order to me they waive one month making it $30. The label says that 720 Colozol capsules cost a little over $1000 at full price. What my HMO actualy pays is not disclosed, but I'm sure it's not that much.

Prices I see on the internet are around $1.00 per capsule plus or minus a few cents, so that would make it around $720 for a 90 day supply; or about $225/month savings.

So yes, my Rx coverage is well worth it, and would still be if the premiums were doubled.

Post Edited (wodin) : 11/7/2011 4:00:32 PM (GMT-7)

The U.S. needs single-payer universal coverage. Period. The reason we don't have it is because a fanatic element in our country yells "Socialism!" whenever any progressive ideas enter the political arena. We end up with economic Darwinism, the survival of the richest. / Old Hat (30 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)

Old Hat said...
The U.S. needs single-payer universal coverage. Period. The reason we don't have it is because a fanatic element in our country yells "Socialism!" whenever any progressive ideas enter the political arena. We end up with economic Darwinism, the survival of the richest. / Old Hat (30 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)

 

Agreed.

Oldhat said...
The U.S. needs single-payer universal coverage. Period. The reason we don't have it is because a fanatic element in our country yells "Socialism!" whenever any progressive ideas enter the political arena. We end up with economic Darwinism, the survival of the richest. / Old Hat (30 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)

I just don't get it. We are fortunate enough as Americans to see the effects of these 'progressive' policies played out in real freaking time right before our very eyes across the pond and see its unsustainable results. Greece teeters on the abyss, Italy is a step behind and five times larger than Greece so as to make a larger splash. Soon France is going to have to pay the piper not to mention the other three PIIGS. It's right there for all to see. What part of a debt of fifteen trillion dollars do people not understand? FIFTEEN THOUSAND BILLION DOLLARS. Thank God for low interest rates today so we aren't completley screwed yet.

Conservatives and liberals both can't stand him, but he's my choice for '12 and I loved what I read this morning from him:

What I am trying to do is initiate the idea that solving health problems is the best way to reduce costs," Gingrich begins. Look at polio, he says. What if it had not been cured? What if one took the high cost of treating polio in 1950 and simply projected it through 2011? The numbers would be enormous. Without even considering the human benefits, curing polio was far, far cheaper than treating it over decades.

Now Gingrich wants to approach Alzheimer's and other brain disorders the same way. "The scale of brain-related problems is so large and so unreported," he tells the scientists, "that if you think of the supercommittee right now, for example -- they're trying to find $1.5 trillion [in savings] over ten years -- the projection the Alzheimer's Foundation gave me was that Alzheimer's alone could cost $20 trillion in public and private funds between now and 2050." Spending billions on curing Alzheimer's -- sums Congress would never approve in today's political atmosphere -- could save astonishing amounts of money in the long run.

I've never commented on a political thread here...I don't like it, but I couln't help myself

Good try, but no. Jackie Gingrich Cushman, the daughter, refuted this a long time ago.

Touching on the comment about suing doctors, it's not that hard. My husband reviews malpractice suits on the side. He's not a lawyer, it's not his job, he just does it every once in a while. And even that way he did 7 this year. He got asked to do about 20. Now i know that seems like a small number, but he's just doing it for lawyers he knows, and only cases that are in his area. What rarely happens is the case going to court, most are settled for much less than the person asked for, even if the person being sued is not at fault.
I have yet to see why anyone would be against health care for everyone. People who pay their hospital bills are paying for this anyway. Everytime some goes to the ER with a splinter, and doesn't pay their bill, that cost gets absorbed by someone who does pay. My husbands ER wrote off at least one MILLION dollars a month on non payers. The money to make that up has to come from somewhere, hospitals have to make money to pay their staff, and they are generally understaffed anyway. That's a bit off topic, but my point is if everyone had health care that would take a lot of that away, and health care costs may actually go down.
I understand that the problem is finding money to pay for this program, but why not tax things like soda and chips and ice cream? Obesity is a huge problem and costing a ton of money for medicare and medicaid. It's ok to tax cigarettes and liquor more, why not things that have no nutritional value and are only adding to the problem? Before prohibition there was little income tax, the tax on liquor took care of all the spending, and people still bought it.
There was a guy on Stephen Colbert who was suggesting taxing unhealthy items, and I can't remember his numbers, but basically it would come close to paying the costs of health care. Although I'm sure someone will shoot that down as the government telling us what we can and can't have. For some reason, the parents at school are upset that new rules don't allow the kids to have salt, or get candy as prizes. Not sure why when we have a 3rd grader who weighs more than me. I guess people feel like that their choices are being taken away. I personally don't see that, you would still have the choice to buy coke, just pay a little more.
More research does need to be done, but then they throw in stem cell research and all these other things, and that becomes a fight too. No one can win when the sides go against each other just for the heck of it. We can't blame just the president, and we can't blame just this president, there have been lots before him. Congress and Senate have to agree on something to get laws passed, but they are too busy fighting to do anything.

I know the insurance co r blaming obama but the truth is it will be better for us with this pre-exsisting condition becuz we wont get dropped.