Common Dreams: We Need to Reform this HCR

snip

"Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.

The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:

* About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.

* Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.

* Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.

* The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.

* People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.

* Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

snip

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/23-10

How much of their medical expenses are covered by not having insurance? How much do hospitals and clinics have to pay to treat people without insurance?

Tell the whole story why don't you? I use to be a controller at a medical clinic.

Part if the money you say hospitals will lose is called "Disproportionate Share" payments. It is money paid to hospitals that treat a disproportionate share if uninsured people. There will not be as much a need for that if more people have insurance.

i suspect many, many people will not purchase insurance, but rather accept the penalty; they still wind up, ininsured, at hospitals.

Will they be turned away?

A mandate, without a strong public option, is unacceptable.

This article shines the light on the consequences, which many Americans are not yet aware of.

That is a figure I heard on KPFK yesterday.

What the bill tries to do is to have more people take responsibility for their medical costs. Sure there will be people depending on the system to take care of them and some honestly need the help, others are ripping off the system.

We on the one hand say we care about people who need help and if that help comes in the form of us paying for insurance to hell with helping them! The reason to force people to do what they should do is so that the risk pool has people with less need in it. That is how we can afford to treat 90% of the people with some kind of care. Is it perfect? No! is the status quo better? No!

And it affects many more than the person or family going bankrupt or the hospital or medical clinic and its providers. Ever other creditor takes a hit as well, and when you're looking at many hundreds of thousands of these per year, it take its toll on the overall economy.

don't go bankrupt over medical bills. Are you saying that won't happen?

who conducted the groundbreaking medical bankruptcy studies published in the professional journal Health Affairs.

According to their analysis, the current legislation won't make a dent in the medical bankruptcy rate- as the vast majority of those going bankrupt did so for medical reasons and the vast majority of those were insured.

Given that this bill creates incentives that will move more and more people into higher deductible, higher copay insurance- and gains by more insureds will be offset by the fact that the policies aren't designed to cover the costs of their treatment.

The bill stops this from happening. People cannot be denied treatment and coverage thus lessening the need for bankruptcy.

Giving them a policy that only covers 70% is Medical Bankruptcy either way for most.
The HCR Bill doesn't really change that.
When you're broke, you're broke.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/the-actuarial-squeeze-on-low-and-middle-income-families

"The Health Affairs article by Jon Gabel and his colleagues shows that plans with an 80% actuarial value are not providing adequate financial protection to individuals with modest incomes who need health care. Having a plan with an 80% actuarial value can place you in the ranks of the underinsured.

...If there is a cap on out-of-pocket spending, then why should the precise actuarial value make difference? Simply, the lower the actuarial value, the greater the likelihood that the patient will have to spend the full amount up to the cap. Thus more individuals will be negatively impacted. Also, the amount of the cap makes a very big difference. The proposed caps on out-of-pocket spending, when added to the patient's share of the premium, create a financial hardship for most low and middle income individuals and families..."

I like this title better. and I agree with him.