Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

Healthcare Reform: So close, and yet so far away

by on Nov. 09, 2009, under Health

The healthcare reform bill that was narrowly passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday night includes provisions that would take effect in as early as 2010.

- Private insurers could no longer deny anyone coverage based on preexisting conditions, place lifetime limits on coverage, or abandon people when they become ill.

-Children, up to age 27, would be allowed to remain on their parents’ family policy.

-Seniors who fall into the donut hole would get a 50% discount on their drug costs.

These would be wonderful changes that would benefit many people I know. They are relatively easy to implement and could take effect quickly.  Other parts of the bill would take three or four years to put in place – like the public option.

On Sunday we were close to getting dramatic change for 2010. On Monday we were told the bill is D.O.A. in the Senate. They say creating legislation in the US Congress is like making sausage – you don’t want to watch how it’s done. I can’t watch anymore because I get excited one day and disappointed the next.  We are so close – and yet so far away from changing our shameful health insurance system. (This is my opinion – and I’m an insurance broker.)

This entry was posted on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am and is filed under Health. Tags for this post: , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • ldonyo

    You’re absolutely right and people need to remember this when voting next year.

  • spiritrebel

    I hope and pray that a day will come when insurance excutives, big pharma excutives, and the medical profession will make heart based decisions rather than every decision being based on the bottom line, how much money is in it.  The pain and suffering of the people should not be a windfall for the insurance or medical industry.  Everyone who works deserves to be paid a livable wage; but none deserve to become wealthy at another’s expense.

    • mорское

      ” hope and pray that a day will come when insurance excutives, big pharma excutives, and the medical profession will make heart based decisions rather than every decision being based on the bottom line”

      better ask the stock holders if would like thatir stocks to reflect a heart or a profit? want to bet on the answer.

  • tiponeill

    It’s more like watching Kosher sausage, with congresscritters on the phone to the Catholic Bishops to get their blessing.

  • Mark

    How can you believe that socialist dribble.  Doctors deserve the money they earn.  How else can they pay off all of the school bills plus all the overhead for equipment, business, costs, etc.  If doctor’s didn’t care about their patients they wouldn’t have gone through 8-12 yrs, more or less, of school to get their license.  We live in America where we all have the ability to WORK for more than just a livable wage.  Quit spewing your lazy rhetoric around.  We are the greatest country on earth but you think we should go backwards to be like the Europeans or Canadians.  You don’t deserve the freedom we fight and die for everyday. 

    • tiponeill

      Well we ARE more likely to die than the Canadians- at least you got that part right ;)

      • medicareblogger

        Mark, where did I write anything about doctors being paid less?  Doctors are not the target of healthcare reform -except for those that own diagnostic and surgery centers and order tests and procedures that are uneccesary and amount to fraud.  It’s the waste in the system that continues to be targeted – not doctors. 

        Insurance companies are the target because they are the bureaucrats between you and your doctor, deciding who gets coverage and who gets care.  Pharmaceutical companies are also the target because Americans pay $100 for a drug while Canadians and Europeans get the same drug for $25.  If you think insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies ripping off average Americans is okay, then you are on the winning side for now.

        • james

          And do you know why the same perscription costs so much here in the USA vs all other countries? Because the Pharms here HAVE to have GOVT approval for all the drugs. The other countries wait until the approval is met here, and then the drug is allowed in their country. So, once again, USA kicks in the cost for all the rest of the world, and again, we’re the bad example cause we don’t have low costs for our folks. disallow the export of the drugs to ANY other country, and then tell me how fast their prices go up.

          Socialism only works as long as someone else is paying for it! Dig out your money!

          • tiponeill

            “Because the Pharms here HAVE to have GOVT approval for all the drugs. The other countries wait until the approval is met here, and then the drug is allowed in their country.”
            You are just a fountain of misinformation aren’t you ? In fact each country has it’s own approval process and it is quite common for people to have drugs in Europe which are not yet available here because the FDA hasn’t approved them yet.
            Many of the largest pharmaceutical companies (Bayer, Hoffmann Laroche, Novartis )aren’t even IN the US.
            Th reason that drugs cost so much more here is because our lawmakers have passed laws exempting them from competition and guaranteeing that they can have monopolies for years).
            (These companies are also among the largest contributors to our lawmakers’ campaigns)
             
             
             

  • mорское

    “This is my opinion – and I’m an insurance broker” so this means what? your opinion is special?

    United States — Death Rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est)
    Canada — Death Rate: 7.61 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)

    A little better but by no means that much better.

    This is due to a lot of reasons that health care reform will not effect. Crime, traffic accidents, etc.

  • mорское

    Interesting ……….. it would seem a few so called civilized nations with their great healt care programs need to regroup.

    And perhaps we should minimic China.

    Russia — Death Rate: 16.06 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
    Sweden — Death Rate: 10.24 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
    United Kingdom — Death Rate: 10.05 deaths/1,000 Population(2008 est.)
    France — Death Rate: 8.48 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
    United States — Death Rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est)
    Canada — Death Rate: 7.61 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
    China — Death Rate: 7.03 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)

  • medicareblogger

    Most people think insurance agents don’t want change.

    I have met too many people who are healthy and willing to buy insurance, but they can’t.  They were deemed “uninsurable” due to high cholesterol (one 63 year old) and a spot on the lung (a 60 yr old woman, whose doctor said it is nothing).  These are just two recent examples.  I have many more.  Although, my biggest gripe is when a 55 year old healthy woman has to pay over $300 per month for a policy with a $5,000 deductible.

    From my inside view, I think the system is broken – for what it’s worth.

  • mорское

    so let’s get it out for discussion ……… if i have no insurance, i realize i am sick and apply then they have to take me?

    if this is true, then i want the same law for auto insurance. that way, i will cancel my policy and get one when after i have a wreck.

    sound good?

    • medicareblogger

      No, you don’t get insurance only when you get sick.   The only way for reform to work is if everyone must get insurance, so everyone is paying into the system.  If everyone is paying into the sytem, the insurance companies will have 30-40 million new customers.  With all that money, premiums should go down because the companies can make profits even if there are sick people who get coverage.  That’s how insurance works. 

      The idea of a not-for-profit “public option” is to give the insurance companies some competition.  In a capitalist system, competition is supposed to create better service and lower costs for consumers.  That’s the idea behind the public option.  Currently, in many states, there are one or two insurance companies that overwhelm the market.  They have no incentive to keep premiums low.  So the public plan fits in perfectly for our capitalist system.

  • mорское

    and of course, everyone knows that current premiums will increase so the insurance company can cover know losses from excepting currently sick people and having no caps.

    after all, they are in the business to make a profit. i know the stock holders will want a return on their investment.

    unless of course, the idea is to bankrupt the insurance companies and have only socialized medicine and we all know that could not be true.

    • medicareblogger

      Are you telling me you like and your trust insurance companies???? If so, you’ve never worked for one.  I have worked for a large insurance company, and I can tell you they are inefficient and inhuman.  If you run afoul of the computer system of an insurance company….good luck!

    • mорское

      everyone MUST ………. sieg heil mein fuhrer

      government mandated coverage whether you want it or not. big brother knows better and its all for your good or is that that the common good ………. maybe sieg heil mein fuhrer is wrong, perhaps we should all sing praises to stalin or mao.

      let’s not stop there ………………..
      elimination of non nutritional foods
      elimination soda drinks of all kinds
      mandate charity contributions per government list
      no home schooling ……. public school indoctrination only
      lets clean it all up

      non-profit for competition? since when can a for profit organization compete with a non-profit organization? that statement does not even make sense.

      where will these 30-40 million (btw, 12-15 million are illegals) get the money to but insurance from the for profit organizations since their reason for not having it now is no money. they will go to the public option giving the non-profit organization a additional advantage furthering tipping the scales against the for profit organizations.

      since the for profit organizations will have to accept all ready sick people and eliminate caps, the premiums will not go down, they will go up to off set the coming losses for the for profit organizations.

      question for ya …………. i ain’t doing it. so do i get jail or just lashes or confiscation of property or all three? and i ain’t alone.

      • tiponeill

        No moppy, we’ll just add it to your 1040.
        P.S. you are raqnting again ;)

        • mорское

          a man was reviewing his taxes and he noted quite a few more tax deductions for next year tippy …….. i predict a national trend emerging.

  • mорское

    Are you telling me you like and your trust insurance companies???? who said anthying about trust?

     ”I can tell you they are inefficient and inhuman” who do you think they learned it from ………. the government.

  • mорское

    “In a capitalist system, competition is supposed to create better service and lower costs for consumers”

    correct ……….. if it is apples to apples ………. not when the competition is a non-profit organization.

  • james

    1.2 trillion dollars, Any real idea how much this is? This is on top of our unprecedented debt now!
    One dollar = one second,
    38,051 years worth of seconds!
    Who is going to pay thia off, and two, How the devil are we going to save money?

«
»