The Obama Healthcare Plan in FOUR Minutes

[iNow]

Seems easy enough.

 

hUNCpnRBf9o

 

Here's a link to the plan: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/

 

 

 

What are your thoughts?

[A Tripolation]

Ok, but if I was a small business owner, first thing I'd do is drop the private insurance and go to the cheap government option...is that not a problem?

 

Or did he address that and I missed it?

[padren]

I made some notes and rebuttal questions - though it is a good video:

1) If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

 

Q) After these changes, will the insurance "you like" only remain the same in name only, due to all the changes overall? With companies going through the huge transitions in what/who they can deny and the new guaranteed services and caps, and the delay in hospitals forwarding savings from unpaid ER visits to that of lowered general care costs, how will these companies still provide the same quality of service without "growing pains" that make them unrecognizable, at least for the short term?

 

2) Insurance Exchange:

 

Q) This occurs after 4 years. What needs does it directly address, and how will this impact our system in the meantime while those needs are unmet?

 

 

3) Low-cost coverage

 

Q) Where does this come from? It sounds like a core element, but the "public option" is an optional element to the whole plan based on his own words. If the public option is scrapped, how will this need be met otherwise?

 

If the public option is only available to those who "don't have insurance" isn't still available to anyone, who choose to drop insurance because they feel it's too expensive, and thus become eligible for the public option? Who and how are people who "can't afford insurance" determined? Would a writer (perhaps the next Hemingway) who lives on next to nothing and is only employed 5 hrs a week going to be subsidized, or told to "get a job" and give up his writing?

 

What about all the people that work under the table - will they become a yet greater tax liability?

4) Will not sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit:

 

Q) How can he be certain of that promise? Short of clairvoyance - once it is signed, new costs could be discovered, and the bill will already exist and and we'll be stuck with either adding money to save it or an expensive rollback.

 

 

 

5) Most can money can be found within the existing health care system (70% if I recall) by eliminating waste. The remaining will come from removing subsidies.

 

Q) How is the "independent medical expert" panel to identify waste and fraud any different than how insurance companies do this now - and why would overhead be less when done by the government?

 

How will this panel be anymore independent than those in the parks department were who were fired for giving the Bush Administration the answers they didn't like regarding the impact on drilling in NWAR? If the medical industry has a strong enough lobby to make it this difficult to pass now due to their influence on politicians, why should this be different when politicians are buying (ultimately, yes, buying) answers we "hope" are objective from the panel of independent medical experts?

 

How will cutting subsidies (the missing 30%) not impact those companies to push the costs to the public? Who decides what passed costs are "fair" and what costs are "abuse" and ultimately what profit margins are exploitative and which are reasonable?

 

 

--

 

These are just some questions I have and kinda wish would be debated. The question of how it will be paid for only gets "if he thinks that he's delusional" from the right, but the "breakdown" is never asked in a rational way and that bothers me.

 

I am still very much in favor of the plan, but I would like to see those questions answered. If it should be split into a different thread feel free, I posted them here as they are in direct response to the 4 minute video.

[iNow]

1) If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

 

Q) After these changes, will the insurance "you like" only remain the same in name only, due to all the changes overall? With companies going through the huge transitions in what/who they can deny and the new guaranteed services and caps, and the delay in hospitals forwarding savings from unpaid ER visits to that of lowered general care costs, how will these companies still provide the same quality of service without "growing pains" that make them unrecognizable, at least for the short term?

Those are fair concerns. Many current companies will no longer be able to compete, and will be pushed out of the market. However, IMO, that is a good thing, since the insurers who cannot compete after the new regulations get put in place are (by definition) the insurers who are screwing their clients the most right now.

 

Also, I think your question is slightly off-point. When Obama says, "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it," he means that there will be no mandate for people to switch providers. That's it. The rest of the natural ebbs and flows are still at play. He's just trying to assuage fears that... written into the bill... will be some sort of mandate that people switch from their current plan to a government one. That's not gonna happen.

 

 

2) Insurance Exchange:

 

Q) This occurs after 4 years. What needs does it directly address, and how will this impact our system in the meantime while those needs are unmet?

Insurance exchange addresses the "need" of having accessible information and quick references to what is available. The way it works in Massachusetts is that the citizen logs in and they can view on one screen what coverages are available for a family of their size, and at what price each of those coverages is provided. It allows them to "compare" each of the plans in one simple way... Much like when shopping online and comparing multiple products (like digital cameras, for instance). It stacks up the key features side by side, then let's you know the price of each to make a better informed decision with less effort.

 

In the meantime... until that 4 years has passed... it will simply require a bit more effort to make those decisions. That's all.

 

 

3) Low-cost coverage

 

Q) Where does this come from? It sounds like a core element, but the "public option" is an optional element to the whole plan based on his own words. If the public option is scrapped, how will this need be met otherwise?

Well, there will be cost controls imposed on the private insurance industry, so that will certainly help. However, we'll really have to wait and see what comes out of this bill. I am relatively confident that a public option WILL be available, but I can't be sure.

 

 

 

If the public option is only available to those who "don't have insurance"

Is that in the bill... that it will ONLY be available to people currently without insurance? That doesn't sound accurate, but I concede that I'm unsure.

 

 

Who and how are people who "can't afford insurance" determined?

Gross income based on family size. It will be determined in much the same way that we determine who is in "poverty."

 

 

4) Will not sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit:

 

Q) How can he be certain of that promise?

Written into the bill will be language which mandates that any new costs are made up for with new revenues and/or cost reductions in other areas of government. I seem to remember something also about new (unforeseen) costs in the future and how those will be handled, but I'm drawing a blank right now on what that is specifically.

 

 

5) Most can money can be found within the existing health care system (70% if I recall) by eliminating waste. The remaining will come from removing subsidies.

 

Q) How is the "independent medical expert" panel to identify waste and fraud any different than how insurance companies do this now - and why would overhead be less when done by the government?

History. Insurance companies spend roughly 30% of all income on administration and overhead. Medicare spends much less... closer to 3-5%. The same difference will be in effect with a government option. As for identifying waste and fraud, I believe they will have a set of expected prices for procedures and tests. They will then compare the invoices being sent for payment for those procedures against the expected price. So, if an MRI costs $3000 pretty much everywhere in the country, and an invoice is submitted asking for a $12000 payment for an MRI, they know it's fraudulent. How this differs from what insurance companies are doing now, I really don't know.

 

*Maybe it differs since insurance companies would just reject payment flat out... saying that MRIs are experimental procedures!

 

 

 

These are just some questions I have and kinda wish would be debated. The question of how it will be paid for only gets "if he thinks that he's delusional" from the right

That's not true at all. They also lie, spread fear, and completely misrepresent what is actually happening.