by designs 9 Replies latest social current
If you have a medical insurance policy chances are you can't switch to another provider or can't get coverage period. When your insurance provider raises premiums this year 30%-60% and you have reached the highest level of deductible what are your plans to address your family's medical needs.
In the National Debate of Health Care what solutions do you see as practical. How can the current Federal policy be ratified or improved over time to address this national crisis.
Please be more specific. Are your questions asked with the possibility of repeal on the horizon? (The new legislation has made provisions for preexisting conditions.)
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/new_plan_options_2011.html
PCIP provides Americans living with such conditions as cancer, diabetes, or heart disease the opportunity to obtain insurance coverage. The program covers a broad range of health benefits and is designed as a bridge for people with pre-existing conditions who cannot obtain health insurance coverage in today’s private insurance market. In 2014, all Americans – regardless of their health status – will have access to affordable coverage either through their employer or through a new competitive marketplace, and insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to anyone based on the state of their health.
For more information about eligibility and benefits please visit www.pcip.gov.
Which would help my husband, my youngest son, and I. We all have pre-existing conditions.
LWT, Mrs. jones-
Thanks, this is the info that needs to be put before the public more, we need help navigating the new laws. 3 years to go, ugh, but at least some relief is coming. Should help millions of us. I will qualify for Medicare in another year which will help, my wife in another 4 years, until then our insurance premium will jump from$1800.00 a month to $3000.00 a month under Blue Cross which we cannot leave- nobody will pick up the preexisting conditions.
Life is a terminal illness.
designs: There are some significant challenges facing Medicare and several other programs.
Consider an average-wage, two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers.
But they can expect to receive medical services — from prescriptions to hospital care — worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.
The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely-held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_he_me/us_medicare_money_s_worth/print
According to the White House website, the new health care legislation will save hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years. We're gonna need it.
Financing Health Care Reform. The reserve fund is financed by a combination of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more as well as specific health care savings in three areas: promoting efficiency and accountability, aligning incentives towards quality and better care, and encouraging shared responsibility. Taken together, the health care savings would total $316 billion over 10 years while improving the quality and efficiency of health care, without negatively affecting the care Americans receive.
Related. . .
Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday waded into terrain where past British governments have foundered, promising fundamental changes to the country's expensive and over-stressed public health care system.
Cameron said the reforms would cut red tape and improve treatment, but critics claim they will cause chaos and could lead to backdoor privatization of the much-criticized but widely popular National Health Service.
The British leader, whose Conservative Party heads the country's coalition government, said he would save money and cut red tape by giving control over management to family practitioners rather than bureaucrats, and allow private companies, charities and social enterprises to bid for contracts within the public health service.
Making health care more efficient has proved an elusive goal for successive British governments. The previous Labour administration vowed to reduce waiting times for treatment, and succeeded — but at the cost, say critics, of wasteful bureaucracy.
In a speech outlining the government's plans to overhaul public services, Cameron promised to get rid of "topdown, command-and-control bureaucracy and targets." He said that with an aging population and growing demand for new medical treatments, "pretending that there is some easy option of sticking with the status quo and hoping that a little bit of extra money will smooth over the challenges is a complete fiction."
The government is due to publish details of its reforms in a Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday.
. . .
First of all - of those 129 million americans - how many of those work for a company where they don't have a desire to change insurance in any case. Or perhaps their plans offer cafeteria plans and they certainly could change? If they change jobs and go to another group plan - no big deal. Also Hippa does allow people to change plans even with pre-existing.
Your facts are so far off I had to weigh in. Where do you get your information? Can't believe this matter bugged me enough to actually post on topics I never post on.
Finally - most states have addressed this problem for years - "high risk pools". I think the states that don't have this should probably consider it. Yes the plans are more expensive - but that is the whole idea of risk management - Why should my healthy family with no pre-existing be penalized for others' health problems. Many of those health problems are related to American epidemic of obesity - I don't think I should have to pay higher rates to compensate for somebody that eats like crap, doesn't work out, and gets diabetes. Then they complain that the high risk pools are too expensive. I say stop eating fast food and quit smoking, get on a budget, and decide what's important to you.
I have an impeccable driving record. I get great insurance rates for my cars. Should I also have to pay for somebody that has multiple DUIs and several speeding tickets and accidents. They indeed have pre-existing conditions in driving and will often have difficulty finding an insurance company to cover them. But there are some plans out there - and yes they're expensive - but if they want it or need it - they'll be able to get it - thanks to the marketplace.
The lack of education in risk management here is appalling. It appears there are at least a few people here that have taken math classes.
OK - sorry for my rant. I'm in a mood.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41149280
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.
 |
| Jill Fromer | Photodisc | Getty Images |
The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.
"When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve," Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.
The U.S. House of Representatives began debate Tuesday on efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry.
Repeal of the bill is likely to fail in the Senate.
Also Tuesday, the Health and Human Services Department released a study predicting that up to 129 million Americans under 65 who have a pre-existing health condition would risk losing health insurance or be denied coverage if the bill is repealed.
Polls show consumers are divided about the impacts of healthcare reform and the House debate has presented an opportunity for many groups to make their arguments for or against it.
Reimbursement Concern
Thomson Reuters researchers and physician services company HCPlexus surveyed 2,958 doctors of varying specialties from 50 states plus Washington, D.C. via fax.
The survey found that 65 percent of the doctors predict healthcare quality will decline over the next five years, 18 percent say it will improve and 17 percent believe it will remain the same.
Most — 74 percent — believe the changes will make their reimbursement less fair, according to the survey, available here.
HHS has predicted that 32 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance will receive it under healthcare reforms.
When asked where most of these newly insured people would get care, 55 percent of the doctors said a nurse practitioner or physician assistant would provide care.
As for patients, 57 percent of doctors predicted the impact of the changes will be negative, 27 percent said they would be positive and 15 percent forecast a neutral effect.
"The National Physicians Survey tells us that physicians have not been enlisted in the healthcare reform process," said David Shrier, chief executive officer of HCPlexus.
"The message they've taken from healthcare reform appears to be 'Do more with less.' Doctors are telling us they feel disenfranchised and overburdened," Shrier added in a statement.
Doctors were also asked about electronic medical records, a major initiative of HHS and of healthcare reform.
There, opinions were split, with 39 percent saying electronic medical records would help patients, 37 percent saying the effect would be neutral and 24 percent saying they would hurt care.
"Our present survey suggests that greater attention should be paid to understanding the present opinions of the health care provider constituency before proceeding down a path of reform.
Without the physicians supporting change it will be difficult to accomplish," the report concludes.
I have absolutely no clue why a picture of Mose Schrute accompanies the above article, but that just made my day.
