Stupak called 'baby-killer' on House floor

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As usual, things go downhill first and faster in Cali:

Feb 18, 2010 6:21 am US/Pacific

Tracy Residents Now Have To Pay For 911 Calls

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.

But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.

Or, there's the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

"A $300 fee and you don't even want to be thinking about that when somebody is in need of assistance," said Tracy resident Greg Bidlack.

Residents will soon receive the form in the mail where they'll be able to make their selection. No date has been set for when the charges will go into effect.

http://cbs13.com/local/tracy.911.calls.2.1502690.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As usual, things go downhill first and faster in Cali:

Feb 18, 2010 6:21 am US/Pacific

Tracy Residents Now Have To Pay For 911 Calls

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.

But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.

Or, there's the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

"A $300 fee and you don't even want to be thinking about that when somebody is in need of assistance," said Tracy resident Greg Bidlack.

Residents will soon receive the form in the mail where they'll be able to make their selection. No date has been set for when the charges will go into effect.

http://cbs13.com/local/tracy.911.calls.2.1502690.html

And this has what to do with the health care reform measure that passed yesterday? Oh right - nothing.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, first of all, that's not true. There are publicly funded health facilities around the country that we pay for today, too. Those would have to be expanded if nothing was done on the insurance coverage. Way too many people for way too few facilities. Care delivered in the ER is the most expensive care available and all it does is stabilize the patient. No follow-up, no follow-through, the patient will be back at a later point or kick the bucket. We're also addressing the invincible - those that don't pay at all today and are to get a "free ride" if they ever had an emergency. They will now pay towards their own care. They complain because they don't believe in personal responsibility as much as they claim. As for your sniffles, you can treat a hundred sniffles and still save money if that avoids just one visit to the ER. Most importantly, however, one of the main generators of unpaid hospital bills - PHI - will no longer be able to do that - insurers will not be able anymore to leave people hanging once they get sick. They will no longer be allowed to socialize their risk while privatizing their profits.

Sounds good. I really do hope you're right and I'm wrong. I guess we'll see soon enough.

[SMR 368]

Well, first of all, that's not true. There are publicly funded health facilities around the country that we pay for today, too. Those would have to be expanded if nothing was done on the insurance coverage. Way too many people for way too few facilities. Care delivered in the ER is the most expensive care available and all it does is stabilize the patient. No follow-up, no follow-through, the patient will be back at a later point or kick the bucket. We're also addressing the invincible - those that don't pay at all today and are to get a "free ride" if they ever had an emergency. They will now pay towards their own care. They complain because they don't believe in personal responsibility as much as they claim. As for your sniffles, you can treat a hundred sniffles and still save money if that avoids just one visit to the ER. Most importantly, however, one of the main generators of unpaid hospital bills - PHI - will no longer be able to do that - insurers will not be able anymore to leave people hanging once they get sick. They will no longer be allowed to socialize their risk while privatizing their profits.

A couple questions (since like Congress and the President, I'm still trying to figure out what this bill means):

1. How are people without insurance going to be forced to pay for it? The point all along is that they don't have the money to pay for it. An act of Congress saying they have to pay for it isn't going to give them the money to do so. After all, people have always been required by law to pay for healthcare that they receive (before you receive health care you sign an open-ended contract that you will pay for services rendered and not covered by insurance).

2. As far as pre-existing conditions, if someone is in fact a huge insurance risk (which is basically what pre-existing conditions is code for), how do we expect insurance companies to suddenly pay for their care while not increasing rates for everyone or drastically increasing rates for high-risk, pre-existing conditions patients? It's not like insurance companies are going to start cutting into their profit margins.

3. Is this bill going to cover illegal aliens? The reality is that many of these people abusing emergency rooms are here illegally. If the bill doesn't include them, it isn't going to do a whole lot for everyone else.

4. A sort of parity question. I make less than 4x the poverty level and get health insurance from my employer. Will my employer get subsidies to buy me insurance? If so, who is paying for it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A couple questions (since like Congress and the President, I'm still trying to figure out what this bill means):

1. How are people without insurance going to be forced to pay for it? The point all along is that they don't have the money to pay for it. An act of Congress saying they have to pay for it isn't going to give them the money to do so. After all, people have always been required by law to pay for healthcare that they receive (before you receive health care you sign an open-ended contract that you will pay for services rendered and not covered by insurance).

2. As far as pre-existing conditions, if someone is in fact a huge insurance risk (which is basically what pre-existing conditions is code for), how do we expect insurance companies to suddenly pay for their care while not increasing rates for everyone or drastically increasing rates for high-risk, pre-existing conditions patients? It's not like insurance companies are going to start cutting into their profit margins.

3. Is this bill going to cover illegal aliens? The reality is that many of these people abusing emergency rooms are here illegally. If the bill doesn't include them, it isn't going to do a whole lot for everyone else.

4. A sort of parity question. I make less than 4x the poverty level and get health insurance from my employer. Will my employer get subsidies to buy me insurance? If so, who is paying for it?

1.) There will be subsidies to help pay for policies based on one's income.

2.) Not necessarily. My wife, for example, would be considered to have a pre-existing condition. Based on nothing but having had a biopsy done which came back negative for cancer. The fact alone that she was diagnosed at some point with the possibility of having cancerous tissue is enough to put her into a high-risk category from that day forward. In fact, just her being of child-bearing age puts her into a higher risk category which would cause her having to pay higher insurance premiums. What a testimony of the right-to-life crowd being entirely comfortable with such nonsense.

3.) No.

4.) That depends on your employer. There are provisions to help small businesses with the cost of providing health care coverage to their employees. If your employer qualifies, he will see a cost reduction as a result of this bill.

[lostinblue 1,989]

To whom? Your premiums will go down when everyone is covered vs. the old system where your premiums reflected the cost of millions of uninsured.

We have covered on this board that the 3000% drop in premiums will not happen. Have some more kool aid. This will not be like feeding a thousand people with a few loaves of bread.

[SMR 368]

1.) There will be subsidies to help pay for policies based on one's income.

2.) Not necessarily. My wife, for example, would be considered to have a pre-existing condition. Based on nothing but having had a biopsy done which came back negative for cancer. The fact alone that she was diagnosed at some point with the possibility of having cancerous tissue is enough to put her into a high-risk category from that day forward. In fact, just her being of child-bearing age puts her into a higher risk category which would cause her having to pay higher insurance premiums. What a testimony of the right-to-life crowd being entirely comfortable with such nonsense.

3.) No.

4.) That depends on your employer. There are provisions to help small businesses with the cost of providing health care coverage to their employees. If your employer qualifies, he will see a cost reduction as a result of this bill.

1. Who's paying for the subsidies? Lowering your premiums by paying more taxes doesn't really have a positive end result.

2. But forcing insurance companies to take on patients that are statistically a bad risk will mean raising rates or going out of business. Women of child-bearing age cost more to insure because when an insurance company takes on a group of women of child-bearing age, it is assumed that there will be a couple deliveries to pay for. That is the whole point of an insurance company: shared risk. You are charged for the amount of risk you bring. If your risk doesn't materialize, you end up simply paying for the person for whom it does. If that doesn't sit well with you, maybe insurance isn't for you.

There is tons of anecdotal evidence about how the insurance companies label someone "high-risk" improperly. And I don't deny that it happens. But if you think you are better than the insurance companies at evaluating risk on a large scale group basis, then you should probably open your own insurance company.

As long as you have a system based on competition, every insurance company has to try and categorize people based on the amount of risk they bring to the risk pool. Any company that tries to make premiums more equal and not charge higher risk patients higher premiums is doomed to failure. Such a company would only attract people that are deemed high risk by other companies, since people labeled low risk would go to other companies where they get better rates. Although some of these people labeled high risk may have been labeled falsely, on a large scale statistical basis, they will require more care and thus bankrupt the company.

Thus, as long as one company is willing to categorize people based on an imperfect estimate of statistical risk, any company that wants to compete has to do so as well. The only exception would be if the model for calculating risk had very little accuracy. But then someone would develop a good model, and we would be back to insurance as we know it.

Thus, the only way that a system where people are not labeled based on risk could work is if there was no competition. That is, if there was only one company and everyone had to buy insurance from them. We call this socialized medicine.

But back to the original question. Although there are anecdotal counter-examples, most people labeled high risk by insurance companies are justly so-labeled. That is, when you group them, they cost more to treat than a group of low risk people. So, how can you expect insurance companies to simply bend over and treat these people without charging more money?

It's true that on an individual justice basis, the system sucks if you get unfairly labeled high risk. However, different companies label things differently. If you truly are improperly labeled, you should be able to find a company that will recognize that. If you can't, I would consider the possibility that you really are a greater risk (women of child bearing age, for example, really are a greater risk).

3. Great.

4. Who is paying for the subsidies? (see #1)

[Nikita2Charles 32]

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) has acknowledged that he was the one who shouted "baby killer" as Rep. Bart Stupak was speaking on the House floor Sunday night. He said he was referring to the reconciliation bill, not to Stupak.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) has acknowledged that he was the one who shouted "baby killer" as Rep. Bart Stupak was speaking on the House floor Sunday night. He said he was referring to the reconciliation bill, not to Stupak.