• Profile logout login

#healthcare#popular

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 5:14 PM
Fri Dec 11
55 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of intime intime
    12/09/09

    In reply to Health Care Compromise Reached: Public Option Not Really a Public Option Anymore
    2014??? Did I read that correctly???? Why do people have to wait until 2014 to get the federal subsidies for health insurance??? Arrrrrgggghhhh!

    Medicare for EVERYONE. That's the simplest and most sensible option. It's a public option that has already been proven to work and if it is also used to insure healthy young people it will make it possible for the govt. to up it's reimbursement schedule so that it actually covers the docs and hospitals expenses and they will stop their kevetching about how they aren't getting reimbursed enough to stay in business.

    Wow, did I do that in one sentence?

    It will be interesting to see how the House responds.
     Reply
    intime was starred intime was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    In reply to Health Care Compromise Reached: Public Option Not Really a Public Option Anymore
    Wasn't a major point of the exchanges and the public option to have one large pool that includes younger, healthier people that are a lower cost? People age 55-64 are an extremely expensive group to insure. It doesn't make sense from an actuarial standpoint to separate them.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Six and a Quarter Six and a Quarter
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I thought about that too, but perhaps they're trying to address the rapidly increasing number of people who are falling into that older age group. Since the elderly and the young make up the largest groups of the uninsured, and since the elderly are typically the greatest users of health care, it seems like working on creating the greatest number of benefits for both groups would make the most sense.
     Reply
    Lymed approved this comment Six and a Quarter was starred Six and a Quarter was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @Six and a Quarter: Yes, but the cost of those benefits will be astronomical. And if it is hoped to be a first step to expand Medicare, then I think the fact that the costs will be so high for this group will prevent a further expansion.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Six and a Quarter Six and a Quarter
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I agree, but am cautiously optimistic that when they are meting out the technical details for implementing these changes, that they'll have figured out a way to adequately finance it all. CHIP seems to be doing pretty well (although it is an imperfect program it does further the goal of providing children with health care), which might be a good indicator of the level of success this expansion program could hope to achieve.
     Reply
    Six and a Quarter was starred Six and a Quarter was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @Six and a Quarter: But it shouldn't just be about finding the financing. What about the people age 55-64 who will never qualify for a subsidy? They will be stuck paying the high premiums. Compared to other options on the table, I'm not impressed by allowing this group to buy into Medicare without a public option for younger adults.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Six and a Quarter Six and a Quarter
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I get what you're saying, and my support of this plan is definitely measured.

    I focus on the financing because that is a huge factor in the whole process. Not to keep harping on CHIP, but the program was in threat of going bankrupt before Obama approved its expansion and refinancing back in February. If that had happened, even more children would be uninsured. We have to consider that these bills, once implemented, will require future reauthorization for their continuation. If there is any hope of a Republican run government continuing the measures taken by this government in the future, a show of financial success and health will help the cause.

    Filling in the cracks so that the truly needy and worthy don't slip through and addressing the needs of even greater segments of our population is an admirable goal and hopefully the next step. I'm not advocating for throwing more money at failing programs, or for ignoring the truly disenfranchised. But I'm also not for reinventing the wheel when something that has been tested over time has endured.

    I've personally watched as laws meant to help revise entire benefit systems end up crippling them in the name of serving the public good. This is too important an issue to have that happen.
     Reply
    Six and a Quarter was starred Six and a Quarter was unstarred
    Image of intime intime
    12/09/09

    @Six and a Quarter: Hey, people 55-64 are not "elderly!"

    A big reason the Senate Democrats want to include the 55-64 age group into Medicare is to get their foot in the door to eventually cover everyone with Medicare.

    The second reason is that lots of people 55-64 are getting laid off in this recession and are unable to find new employment - and when/if they do they have difficulty getting insured because of "pre-existing conditions." Obviously when you've been alive 55+ years you've had ample opportunity to gain some "conditions." Also, some employers discriminate against older people because they are fearful their health insurance will cost them more than younger people's insurance.

    Putting the 55-64 age group on Medicare will encourage employers to hire them and will help those who are unable to find full-time employment with health insurance.

    Also, it will probably allow many in that group who'd like to retire from full-time employment but couldn't afford health insurance to do so - and this will free up jobs for young people.

    I see this as a win-win for the older vs. younger worker.
     Reply
    intime was starred intime was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @Six and a Quarter: The difference between this and CHIP is that CHIP is heavily subsidized. Even if a family has to pay a premium, it is discounted. Even for those higher income children for whom they may have to pay the actual cost or close to the cost, the cost of insuring children is much much lower than the cost of ensuring somebody age 55-64.

    I'm not talking about the government costs. I'm talking about the actual premium cost to the individual.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @intime: The health bills will get rid of pre-existing condition exclusions, so that won't be a worry anymore.

    When Medicare was first passed, it was expected to be expanded to cover everybody. How many decades has it now been? I have absolutely no faith that covering age 55-64 under Medicare would be a first step to covering everybody under Medicare.
     Reply
    Edited by Lymed at 12/09/09 1:02 PM Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of intime intime
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I do. But it may take another 40 years before it happens. *sigh*
     Reply
    intime was starred intime was unstarred
    Image of eatsshootsleaves eatsshootsleaves
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I thought so to, but the Congressional Budget Office disagrees:

    [voices.washingtonpost.com]
     Reply
    eatsshootsleaves was starred eatsshootsleaves was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @eatsshootsleaves: I was talking about 55-64 compared to people 18-54, not to people already in Medicare. This group will be healthier than the current cohort in Medicare. And if they get coverage and start taking care of conditions now, they will be less expensive down the line in Medicare. So I can see how Medicare would save money. But I still think the premium will be more expensive than if there was a public plan opened to all ages.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Jim Topoleski Jim Topoleski
    12/09/09

    In reply to Health Care Compromise Reached: Public Option Not Really a Public Option Anymore
    Its not great, but this is what HuffPost has gotten out of Senators

    --Medicare expansion 55-64

    --Public option with a trigger ("Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state." If the insurance don't offer such plans it will trigger a national public option.)

    --Health care exchanges

    --Extend a verson of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to all (what Congress has)

    --Program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers

    --Medicaid expansion to 133% of poverty (insuring about 18 million people who DON'T have insurance now)

    --Private insurance companies required to spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

    --Subsidies for middle class and lower class families to pay for insurance."
     Reply
    Jim Topoleski was starred Jim Topoleski was unstarred
    Image of Helio Helio
    12/09/09

    @Jim Topoleski: "Private insurance companies required to spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers."

    How the hell did they get that? It seemed not long ago that JD Rockefeller was struggling to get 85%. If they can enforce this one, I'll be a happy camper.
     Reply
    Helio was starred Helio was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @Helio: Isn't the figure of what is actually spent on medical services about 70% of premiums collected? They will have to offer more comprehensive plans because it will be the only way they can get enough profit.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Helio Helio
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: I believe that's for plans that have smaller pools of people (the correct terminology is escaping me at the moment). The average pay out, for individual, small/large group plans, is ~85%.
     Reply
    Helio was starred Helio was unstarred
    Image of AmbiguouslyUbiquitous AmbiguouslyUbiquitous
    12/09/09

    @Lymed: They can do that, OR they can continue to raise premiums even more so they don't have to take a cut from their profits.

    I vote that they'll go with the second option.
     Reply
    Lymed approved this comment AmbiguouslyUbiquitous was starred AmbiguouslyUbiquitous was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    12/09/09

    @AmbiguouslyUbiquitous: But if they have to spend 90% of the premium collected on medical services, then if they raise premiums they also have to increase benefits. So people will have to be on more comprehensive plans.
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of AmbiguouslyUbiquitous AmbiguouslyUbiquitous
    12/10/09

    @Lymed: My premiums increase every year, yet I never see any extra benefits or services with the increase. They use the "cost of care is increasing" excuse. But aren't they the ones who actually dictate what they'll pay/set the costs, in a way, by "negotiating" with doctors and hospitals?

    I totally understand what you're saying. But what I'm thinking is that instead of insurance companies stating a particular surgery will cost $10,000, and they'll pay $9000 of that, they'll now say that same surgery will cost $20,000, and they'll pay $18,000, giving them another $1000 in revenue.

    We'll have to see how it pans out. I wish I could be more optimistic.
     Reply
    AmbiguouslyUbiquitous was starred AmbiguouslyUbiquitous was unstarred
    Image of Maxichamp Maxichamp
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    I don't think these two are young enough to even know what a text message is.

    Sexy telexes, that's another thing.
     Reply
    Maxichamp was starred Maxichamp was unstarred
    Image of miss_msry miss_msry
    12/07/09

    @Maxichamp:

    I'm going with sexy telegrams. Stop.
     Reply
    miss_msry was starred miss_msry was unstarred
    Image of econdave econdave
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    The one thing I haven't been able to figure out is whether he alerted the WH that she was his girlfriend when he suggested her. If he didn't, that could have really put Obama on the spot. On the other hand, Obama really needs him to pass health reform, so they can't make a big deal about it.
     Reply
    econdave was starred econdave was unstarred
    Image of A Message To Rudy A Message To Rudy
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    Well, it is a bit refreshing to see his sexy-time partner isn't some young chippie, aka, office intern or personal aide.

    Man, is that where we've fallen too?
     Reply
    A Message To Rudy was starred A Message To Rudy was unstarred
    Image of jupiterspaw jupiterspaw
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    I prefer Montana to be a little more Legends of the Fall, a little less Fall of the Non-Legendary, Dumbass Senator.
     Reply
    jupiterspaw was starred jupiterspaw was unstarred
    Image of Airvault Airvault
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    Movin' to Montana soon
    Gonna be a dental floss tycoon!
     Reply
    Airvault was starred Airvault was unstarred
    Image of NotChoinski NotChoinski
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    Your article does nothing to answer the question posed in the headline. If Baucus were to somehow be punished for his affair, that would be good, because it would mean 2-3 republicans would also be punished, giving the dems a majority.
     Reply
    NotChoinski was starred NotChoinski was unstarred
    Image of Smitros Smitros
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    It's weird out there. If Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan hadn't been outed as kinky in the divorce papers, there might not have been a Senator (and President) Barack Obama.
     Reply
    Smitros was starred Smitros was unstarred
    Image of Brad Brown Brad Brown
    12/07/09

    @Smitros: If Tiger hadn't been outed as prolific by the tabloids, I might not have taken up golf.
     Reply
    Brad Brown was starred Brad Brown was unstarred
    Image of 7states 7states
    12/07/09

    @Smitros: Wasn't Obama winning in the polls before the scandal came out?
     Reply
    Smitros promoted this comment 7states was starred 7states was unstarred
    Image of Smitros Smitros
    12/07/09

    @7states: Good question. I don't know. But the scandal sealed his fate and paved the way for the disastrous Alan Keyes nomination.
     Reply
    Smitros was starred Smitros was unstarred
    Image of Lysergic Asset Lysergic Asset
    12/07/09

    @Smitros: Seven of nine voters surveyed agree with you.
     Reply
    Lysergic Asset was starred Lysergic Asset was unstarred
    Image of Lysergic Asset Lysergic Asset
    12/07/09

    @Smitros: Also: Without Barack Obama, there would be no Sarah Palin. Imagine what a colorless world that would be.
     Reply
    Lysergic Asset was starred Lysergic Asset was unstarred
    Image of Pope John Peeps II Pope John Peeps II
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    Well, one can hardly be surprised, right? I mean Baucus is the god of wine and orgies.
     Reply
    Pope John Peeps II was starred Pope John Peeps II was unstarred
    Image of Wrapitup Wrapitup
    12/07/09

    @Pope John Peeps II: This elusive little nymph called Public Option got thoroughly fucked by Baucus. True story.
     Reply
    Wrapitup was starred Wrapitup was unstarred
    Image of HaysiFantayzee HaysiFantayzee
    12/07/09

    @Pope John Peeps II: And flesh hanging from the trees if I remember correctly.
     Reply
    miss_msry promoted this comment HaysiFantayzee was starred HaysiFantayzee was unstarred
    Image of Pope John Peeps II Pope John Peeps II
    12/07/09

    @Wrapitup: Also Baucus used to chase after a Nymph named Vanilla, who was turned into a bean in order to escape him.This is why to this day, the Vanilla plant is known in some circles as "The plant of tedious sex". Or "The democratic tumescence".
     Reply
    Edited by Pope John Peeps II at 12/07/09 11:38 AM Pope John Peeps II was starred Pope John Peeps II was unstarred
    Image of Wrapitup Wrapitup
    12/07/09

    @Pope John Peeps II: Baucus has a boner for Boehner. Yeah, Baucus swings both ways. He's so bipartisan.
     Reply
    Wrapitup was starred Wrapitup was unstarred
    Image of miss_msry miss_msry
    12/07/09

    @HaysiFantayzee:

    Yeah, the whole healthcare debate is making me explode like a Polish sedan.
     Reply
    miss_msry was starred miss_msry was unstarred
    Image of Mediahohoho Mediahohoho
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    Well, he's boning a woman on the side. He must be a Dem.
     Reply
    Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred
    Image of Botswana Meat Commission FC Botswana Meat Commission FC
    12/07/09

    @Mediahohoho: Eggzactly.
    He may be a "blue dog," but if he had gone "Full Republican" this scandal would have involved an airport bathroom, underage male pages and a diaper.
     Reply
    Botswana Meat Commission FC was starred Botswana Meat Commission FC was unstarred
    Image of resipsaloquacious resipsaloquacious
    12/07/09

    In reply to Will Max Baucus' Sexy Affair Kill Health Care Reform?
    I think we should all support Baucus for coming out as a lesbian.

    Congress needs more of these heroes.
     Reply
    resipsaloquacious was starred resipsaloquacious was unstarred
    Image of Swifter Swifter
    12/05/09

    In reply to America's New Politics: Dildos, Mistresses, and Sex Hotlines for Uninsured Children
    Congratulations, Foster, on your bi-partisanship. Also, I hear Republican sex toys will be all the rage this Christmas.
     Reply
    Swifter was starred Swifter was unstarred
    Image of ParahSalin ParahSalin
    12/05/09

    @Swifter: It will be fascinating to see if Republicans try to make this Max Baucus thing a huge deal, as was their wont in the past. By the way, he's a DINO - Democrat in name only. He's been bought and paid for by the insurance industry for years, and you deep thinkers are known for letting industries regulate themselves. It worked out so well with the banking and energy industries, I can't imagine it won't work out with the health insurance industry. Because in the long run we all know that businesses always do what's best for freedom, public health, economic security, and the little autistic Palin children.
     Reply
    Swifter promoted this comment ParahSalin was starred ParahSalin was unstarred
    Image of Swifter Swifter
    12/05/09

    @ParahSalin: Uh...I'm not a Republican. #labelfail
     Reply
    Swifter was starred Swifter was unstarred
    Image of fatmonalisa fatmonalisa
    12/05/09

    @Swifter: Oh please they were all the rage last year. My rubber fist McCain is splendid!
     Reply
    fatmonalisa was starred fatmonalisa was unstarred
    Image of ParahSalin ParahSalin
    12/05/09

    @Swifter: Sure, neither is Glenn Beck. I don't doubt that you're just as much of an Independent as he is.
     Reply
    ParahSalin was starred ParahSalin was unstarred
    Image of Swifter Swifter
    12/05/09

    @ParahSalin: Whatever. My citizenship dues are paid in full, which is more than most of those jokers can claim.
     Reply
    Edited by Swifter at 12/05/09 8:18 PM Swifter was starred Swifter was unstarred
    Image of AzureTexan AzureTexan
    12/05/09

    In reply to America's New Politics: Dildos, Mistresses, and Sex Hotlines for Uninsured Children
    Max Bacchus, one presumes.
     Reply
    AzureTexan was starred AzureTexan was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.