Healthcare Bill - Daily Life Question

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

How will this realistically affect my daily life? I pay taxes and have an accountant. My family runs a business and we’re in Med school to upgrade in the future to a Sports/Physical Therapy Practice from the Fitness centers we own now. How will this affect me?

I think my taxes will stay the same, i may actually pay less then the about 6K we pay annually for Health coverage now. I also foresee us having a greater amount of patients to pool from for future business. And in this case for a business owner this is good as i know payment is always guaranteed from the Insurance comp or Government.

So all the uproar aside, how will this Negatively affect us?

2

Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents.

3

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

Well right now we’re running the business like a health club so we get no payments from any insurance companies. We’re on our own weathering this storm. But are planning to move from running a health club to Physical Therapy. In essence this health bill can expand my future market and potentially cut my families costs of carrying a 6K annual policy, is that right?

4

The Congressional Budget Office a few weeks ago put out an estimate that now-being-mandated insurance for a family of 4 that met the minimum mandates would cost a family of four $15K per year.

So your best estimate right now is that your cost will go up to about that.

5

Is it cheaper for a healthy person to pay the fine, jumping onto a plan if one develops a medical condition later?

6

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is it cheaper for a healthy person to pay the fine, jumping onto a plan if one develops a medical condition later?[/quote]

Yes, the fine is like $750 and if they can’t refuse you for a pre-existing condition all you have to do is save up some money, so if you get sick and you find out you have cancer or something to that affect you just jump onto the plan and get cured.

This bill is going to do nothing but destroy the insurance companies.

7

Didn’t the House bill have a $25K fine?

I don’t know what the current version of the Senate bill is.

And, unless Pelosi – hard to picture – rubberstamps the Senate bill and allows the House to have no input but just orders her underlings to vote yes on it, the bill will be changed in conference.

8

[quote]Gregus wrote:
How will this realistically affect my daily life? I pay taxes and have an accountant. My family runs a business and we’re in Med school to upgrade in the future to a Sports/Physical Therapy Practice from the Fitness centers we own now. How will this affect me?

I think my taxes will stay the same, i may actually pay less then the about 6K we pay annually for Health coverage now. I also foresee us having a greater amount of patients to pool from for future business. And in this case for a business owner this is good as i know payment is always guaranteed from the Insurance comp or Government.

So all the uproar aside, how will this Negatively affect us? [/quote]

I’m not trying to be cruel or anything, but this statement is rather…depressing. Sorry, Gregus, I don’t want to write like you aren’t in the room, so…Gregus, here is an ENORMOUS bill that will affect your life in so many ways just if you were a small business owning family. Now add to that, you are part of a family business that may be dramatically affected by said bill, and you don’t know if the bill will help or hurt your future business prospects.

And you’re asking a bunch of people on an internet forum who, even if they did have knowledge, really don’t have that much of an interest in whether or not you’re a success next year.

COME ON!

You are EXACTLY the sort of person who should be making every possible effort, every free moment of your day, to get independent information on the bill from multiple sources, as well as making an effort to contact your local federal representative. Actually, you should have started this about 6 months ago when you had a shot in hell of actually talking to at least your representative’s junior PR guy/gal…now it could well be far too late for you to do anything of consequence unless you have Schwarzeneggar-level self-motivation.

The fact that it seems this never occured to you and instead you’re asking for advice a few days before the bill might pass, tells me that at very best you feel extremely disenfranchised from the political system…you don’t know who or what to ask, how the government’s actions might effect you, and even the rather languid tone of your current post seems to indicate not that much of concern regarding the potential consequences. I’d think if you were serious about an upgrade of your facilities that might cost you hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, you would at very least write something like, ‘Holy Crap, how will this affect me??? Am I screwed or can I at least breath easy for a little while???’

I could make a less generous assessment but I have no reason to do so with you. But I can’t think of any interpretation of your post that would have a positive reflection on the way the American political system and its relation to the American public.

9

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.

10

Hmmm, so how does a 2700 page bill that does nothing about the factors that really could drive down costs – ending government prevention of insurance competition across state lines, enacting tort reform, and ending government requirements for insurers to include coverage of things such as hair transplants and thus to make everyone pay for them, not just the people that need them – but increases taxes on medical services and devices and on pharmaceutical drugs, and introduces a large number of new Federal bureaucracies POSSIBLY supposed to reduce cost?

And, if insurance companies are to stay in business (I realize that may not be desired, but humor us) then if they are forced to sign up people at low costs when it’s known at the time that they have say hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of medical bills ahead of them in the near future, doesn’t it follow that this inevitably means that people such as you are going to be paying for it?

Assuming, as I am assuming, that you are paying your own insurance premiums, whether directly or via your employer, instead of having others pay for you.

??

Particularly with the Senate bill where the fine is “only” $750 for not bowing to the Government in this matter. With this bill driving family insurance costs up to $15K per year, why not just pay the $750 and wait till being diagnosed with something costing anything much before buying a policy?

Might be 10 years, even 20 or more, before you are diagnosed with anything serious.

Then they can’t “discriminate” against you for your pre-existing condition, and will have to sign you up at the same rate as other people.

Hooray! That is so intelligent. Brilliant really.

Next we need auto insurance reform. They shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against me just because I crashed my car this morning. I ought to still be able to get full coverage at the same price as anyone else, and have that repaired.

11

By the way, is mandating people to buy a product or service, fining them $25K (House bill) if they don’t do so, and imprisoning them for 5 years if they don’t pay the fine what you yourself call “liberal?”

I do agree it is the modern Pelosi, Moveon.org etc version of liberal.

12

[quote]secondplace wrote:

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

You just drank all the kool-aid didn’t you.

13

I disagree. You have to remember…real live people are providing this care. As it is, there are plenty of doctors who are not accepting Medicare and/or Medicaid as sole payment because it pays less than what is paid an average auto mechanic in suburban America. Medicare has adequately adjusted payments for inflation since…oh at least the 1970’s. If you are truly curious I could find specifics. Now with physician incomes dropping to levels that can’t even pay off school debts, you have a lot of doctors who are seriously considering moving out of country. I know two who are thinking about moving to the Philippines…not that they would make more on a dollar basis, just that they would have far more for the same amount of time worked.

If this isn’t ridiculous I don’t know what is. America has incredibly high quality medical care and I don’t think most people have a clue how bad things could get when you get the quality of physician that such a low income will produce.

If you wish to criticize my retort because of how ‘conservative’ it may sound to you, fine, but if you were to do so, you would be denying a reality that will end up affecting millions. Please, for everyone if not just for me, please step out of the liberal/conservative assumptions. Please. They are indicative of self-limiting thought.

Just one little tiny thought…every time public health has been considered, I’ve made the same prediction – America is going to screw it up because the lawmakers will simultaneously screw physician incomes AND do nothing about tort reform. As an example…in Canada, at least until recent years, doctors made less on average than in the United States, but things balanced out fairly well because malpractice there isn’t a psychotic free-for-all. But in the states, we have the brilliance of lowering the income of people trained to save and extend life spans and help defeat horridly painful life-threatening diseases and injuries… but not lowering the ridiculous fees they pay for insurance and not eliminating the possibility than an otherwise good doctor can become bankrupt over one malpractice case.

That’s just one looming stupidity.

Now if I may ask you something, you may answer at your own discretion…may I ask if you have gone out of your way of reading an analysis produced by an organization that may be neutral or even hostile to your normal way of thinking? Can you clear your mind long enough to read through any copy of the bill so far and analyze it yourself? Can you see the potential benefit of following such a course of action?

14

Simple: just fine doctors $25K for not treating an adequate (as determined by the Government) number of Medicare patients at the soon-to-allegedly-be-cut Medicare rate, and imprison them if they don’t pay the fine.

What would Nancy find wrong with that?

Health care is a right. If these doctors deny you your human right by not treating you at the Medicare pay rate, then they are criminals who at the least should pay a large fine for violating your rights, and if they defy the controlling political party by not paying that fine, then they should be imprisoned.

15

[quote]secondplace wrote:

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

They are about to ensure that you will not be happy with your current insurance. You are in a pool. If people are able to enter that pool and not pay according to the care they need, who do you think will pay? If people can join your pool only once the get sick and need expensive care, who do you think will pay?

Plain and simple.

16

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Simple: just fine doctors $25K for not treating an adequate (as determined by the Government) number of Medicare patients at the soon-to-allegedly-be-cut Medicare rate, and imprison them if they don’t pay the fine.

What would Nancy find wrong with that?

Health care is a right. If these doctors deny you your human right by not treating you at the Medicare pay rate, then they are criminals who at the least should pay a large fine for violating your rights, and if they defy the controlling political party by not paying that fine, then they should be imprisoned.[/quote]

Medicare is not getting cut for long. They are taking it away so they have something to sell. The cost…a vote. I would expect medicare earmarks for blue states in every bill that comes up. Just a way of buying votes and punishing red states.

17

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

Everyone has some degree of care with emergency rooms, so while you make it sound as if people have “no” care at all, that is not true.

I criticize the bill because I do not trust the government to effectively run health care. The government is much too big and clumsy an entity to run something so serious. These are people who stay awake all night to find ways to screw you during the day. Did you not already know this? Have you not seen enough bullshit to convince you that the government could care less about you, as long as you keep making money so they can tax you later? Have you not seen the bribery to make this thing go through? Please remove the anal from your analysis.

18

[quote]LHT wrote:
I disagree. You have to remember…real live people are providing this care. As it is, there are plenty of doctors who are not accepting Medicare and/or Medicaid as sole payment because it pays less than what is paid an average auto mechanic in suburban America. Medicare has adequately adjusted payments for inflation since…oh at least the 1970’s. If you are truly curious I could find specifics. Now with physician incomes dropping to levels that can’t even pay off school debts, you have a lot of doctors who are seriously considering moving out of country. I know two who are thinking about moving to the Philippines…not that they would make more on a dollar basis, just that they would have far more for the same amount of time worked.

If this isn’t ridiculous I don’t know what is. America has incredibly high quality medical care and I don’t think most people have a clue how bad things could get when you get the quality of physician that such a low income will produce.

If you wish to criticize my retort because of how ‘conservative’ it may sound to you, fine, but if you were to do so, you would be denying a reality that will end up affecting millions. Please, for everyone if not just for me, please step out of the liberal/conservative assumptions. Please. They are indicative of self-limiting thought.

Just one little tiny thought…every time public health has been considered, I’ve made the same prediction – America is going to screw it up because the lawmakers will simultaneously screw physician incomes AND do nothing about tort reform. As an example…in Canada, at least until recent years, doctors made less on average than in the United States, but things balanced out fairly well because malpractice there isn’t a psychotic free-for-all. But in the states, we have the brilliance of lowering the income of people trained to save and extend life spans and help defeat horridly painful life-threatening diseases and injuries… but not lowering the ridiculous fees they pay for insurance and not eliminating the possibility than an otherwise good doctor can become bankrupt over one malpractice case.

That’s just one looming stupidity.

Now if I may ask you something, you may answer at your own discretion…may I ask if you have gone out of your way of reading an analysis produced by an organization that may be neutral or even hostile to your normal way of thinking? Can you clear your mind long enough to read through any copy of the bill so far and analyze it yourself? Can you see the potential benefit of following such a course of action?[/quote]

I thought I’d give this a bump since my comment seemed to get quite a few responses(even though the public option is probably off the table). First of all, exorbitant insurance fees for malpractice suits are yet ANOTHER symptom of the failed private insurace system, not a reason for tort reform and to take away a persons right to protect themselves against malpractice. Second, tort reform is not the main reason Canadian doctor’s income is protected. the main reason is that something like 98% of them belong to the Canadian Medical Protective Association, which pays for any and all suits without deductables. Interestingly, the CMPA is non-profit. It’s amazing isn’t it?- how much better people’s needs are accounted for when they’re not insured by an entitiy who’s only concern is, not only making a profit, but in the case of public companies, INCREASING profit year over year. And third, the vast majority of medical malpractice suits start in the emergency room (where people go when their not insured) because of misunderstandings due to doctors and patients being strangers to eachother.

I do agree with you that the liberal/conservative side-taking does everyone a disservice and that is why I was trying to point it out, though maybe not very eloquently. This is also why I won’t take the time to respond to your last paragraph.

19

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

Everyone has some degree of care with emergency rooms, so while you make it sound as if people have “no” care at all, that is not true.

I criticize the bill because I do not trust the government to effectively run health care. The government is much too big and clumsy an entity to run something so serious. These are people who stay awake all night to find ways to screw you during the day. Did you not already know this? Have you not seen enough bullshit to convince you that the government could care less about you, as long as you keep making money so they can tax you later? Have you not seen the bribery to make this thing go through? Please remove the anal from your analysis. [/quote]

I truly can’t believe that you think anybody could care less about your and my health than insurance companies. It is literally their job to ensure that they provide you less in healthcare than you pay them for - that’s the definition of a profit, and that’s why they are the last people that should be in charge of, in some cases, whether we live or die. Insurance companies, because of their policies, have played the role of murderer time and time again.

Your so right, they do have care. And who do you think pays for those emergency room visits every time someone uninsured gets a runny nose? This is why it’s in the best interest of the tax payers to get as many people insured as possible. Not to mention the bill is payed for by the newly-insured’s premiums.

Why is that people start fearing their government when big business is challenged, but not when lies about wars are being shoved down their throats?

20

[quote]secondplace wrote:

I truly can’t believe that you think anybody could care less about your and my health than insurance companies. It is literally their job to ensure that they provide you less in healthcare than you pay them for - that’s the definition of a profit, and that’s why they are the last people that should be in charge of, in some cases, whether we live or die. Insurance companies, because of their policies, have played the role of murderer time and time again.

   [/quote]

A bakers profit comes from literally “giving you less bread than you pay for” and he is personally responsible for all the people starving in this world?

TSB.