Seriously? No one objected or asked for his words to be taken down?

It's going to fail, but nice chutzpah there.

*doublepromote
*chants* grayson..Grayson..GRAYSON..GRAYSON!!!

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 1:19pm PST - doublepromote requested by JiggaJonson.

This is real reform. The bill is 4 pages long - simple and to the point.

Take note (you too NetRunner) - there's no need to negotiate with the Health Care Industry, the Republicans, or lobbyists. Just KISS.

It's just laughable that there would be any debate about this. How could anyone justify voting against this bill to their constituents? Doesn't it pretty much expose every politician who is paid off by the insurance industry if they vote no? Makes it easy to point out the targets.

Some insurance company is kicking itself over letting one future senator go uncovered during their child's birth. When they could have covered him and denied all of the non-senators and people with the power to hurt their profits.

This last year for me has been a terrible year dealing with Anthem, they decided the medications Im on for asthma are no longer "formulary".....even though the "formulary" they decided was the best option does absolutely nothing for me in the case of an attack perhaps even aggravates the condition. And then at the end of the year they jacked my rates up triple what it was the year before.

What they hold against you is so arbitrary it's impossible to know. Major surgeries? If it was back surgery not related to an underlying condition like my brother, doesn't affect rates. Have a mental breakdown? Not held against you, seek treatment...they just may decide not to pay for it. Asthma? Not supposed to be held against you, but they will question treatments related to it. Overweight? Yes, but they won't pay for any treatment related to it. Allergies? Yes, they screwed up payment for this I dunno how many times...go for months while the provider tries to get paid by the insurance company. Then you get the mega-bill 5 months down the road because Anthem sudden figures out their issues and pays 5 months worth at once.


Given how much of a change I've seen in insurance coverage in the last year, I have to wonder if the insurance companies aren't worried about the bill being passed and trying to nickel and dime as much as they can. Just like the credit companies were doing with outstanding credit debt, maxxing out rates or cutting off credit lines to people before the bill became active limiting their rates/abilities.

It sounds like a simple, effective idea, but I am curious about a few things.

-Medicare is currently funded through payroll taxes (I think), which is a percent of income. Would "paying in" to the system be in addition to the current taxes?
-Would high-income and low-income people pay the same additional rate?
-How much is the "at cost" rate, and how is it determined?
-Would people below a certain income be exempt from the monthly rate? If so, how is their coverage funded?
-How much cost would be added to the system to track payments and delinquencies for (possibly) millions of new beneficiaries?
-Could people wait until the got sick to join, and then possibly drop it afterward?

We've gotten suckered into another lose/lose situation.

The Dems, being the bunch of inept idiots that they are, did it to themselves.

If this bill passes, we will be under the obligation of law to pay private health insurers.

Once that happens, year after year, they will pass legislation that allows them to limit coverage and raise premiums.

Without a public option, this bill is a disaster in the making.

This grayson guy is awesome. Im sure he is going to run for president (though prob not in the next election). He just may win if the insurance companies keep up their bullshit and Barack Oblahblah keeps reneging on his campaign promises.

>> ^Psychologic:
It sounds like a simple, effective idea, but I am curious about a few things.
-Medicare is currently funded through payroll taxes (I think), which is a percent of income. Would "paying in" to the system be in addition to the current taxes?
-Would high-income and low-income people pay the same additional rate?
-How much is the "at cost" rate, and how is it determined?
-Would people below a certain income be exempt from the monthly rate? If so, how is their coverage funded?
-How much cost would be added to the system to track payments and delinquencies for (possibly) millions of new beneficiaries?
-Could people wait until the got sick to join, and then possibly drop it afterward?


Please read the bill -- It's quite short and answers almost all of these questions.

Bill text: http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4789:
Social Security Act section 1818: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1818.htm

- Buying into the plan refers to enrolling and paying premiums for Medicare. Payroll taxes are not affected.
- Rates depend only on age cohort (age group).
- "The Secretary shall, during September of each year (beginning with 1988), estimate the monthly actuarial rate for months in the succeeding year. Such actuarial rate shall be one–twelfth of the amount which the Secretary estimates (on an average, per capita basis) is equal to 100 percent of the benefits and administrative costs which will be payable from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services performed and related administrative costs incurred in the succeeding year with respect to individuals age 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under this part during that year." (From Social Security Act s.1818) The new bill assigns cost based on the pertinent age cohort instead of individuals age 65 and over.
- The bill doesn't make allowances for this, so if an individual people below a certain rate over age 65 were eligible for price breaks, then people under 65 would be eligible for the same breaks. The bill only affects enrollment and calculation of premiums.
- We'll have to wait for the CBO estimate for this one.
- "Enrollment; Coverage- The Secretary shall establish enrollment periods and coverage under this section consistent with the principles for establishment of enrollment periods and coverage for individuals under section 1818, except that no entitlement to benefits under this part shall be effective before the first day of the first calendar year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act." (from the Public Option Act) Similar criteria for enrollment will apply to new enrollees. If you can pull the add / drop bait and switch with Medicare now, then everyone will be able to do it tomorrow. If not, then not.

Want!

Sounds like what we have in Australia - everyone gets medicare and is charged at a certain rate which is approximately 1.5% of your income. If you earn below a certain amount you get subsidised, if you earn over about $60,000 a year you pay more. Private insurance can still be useful if you want to raise the standard of care you receive or shorten the waiting lists, but nobody has to worry about not having an insurance card when they get taken to hospital.

Quite honestly, medical receptionist must be one of the worst jobs in America right now , turning away dieing people because they don't have an insurance card would have to do something to your soul.

The first couple of times I saw this guy I was thrown off by his roughness. He just seemed a little inarticulate, a little base. My mistake. Seeing him now he feels like a real 'Mr Smith'. God bless.
I'd kick ass and take names for him.

>> ^rougy:
We've gotten suckered into another lose/lose situation.
The Dems, being the bunch of inept idiots that they are, did it to themselves.
If this bill passes, we will be under the obligation of law to pay private health insurers.
Once that happens, year after year, they will pass legislation that allows them to limit coverage and raise premiums.
Without a public option, this bill is a disaster in the making.


If by "this bill" you mean a different bill entirely - the bill being discussed in this video is the missing public option that should be in the oft-discussed much larger bill. I, and as far as I'm concerned any sane person, want this to pass as soon as possible.

>> ^moonsammy:
>> ^rougy:
We've gotten suckered into another lose/lose situation.
The Dems, being the bunch of inept idiots that they are, did it to themselves.
If this bill passes, we will be under the obligation of law to pay private health insurers.
Once that happens, year after year, they will pass legislation that allows them to limit coverage and raise premiums.
Without a public option, this bill is a disaster in the making.

If by "this bill" you mean a different bill entirely - the bill being discussed in this video is the missing public option that should be in the oft-discussed much larger bill. I, and as far as I'm concerned any sane person, want this to pass as soon as possible.


"Without a public option, this bill is a disaster in the making."

Clear enough, fellow sane person?

That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.
>> ^ghark:
Quite honestly, medical receptionist must be one of the worst jobs in America right now, turning away dieing people because they don't have an insurance card would have to do something to your soul.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.


Sure, they'll give you the surgery, if you survive the delays in getting around to it. And you're responsible for a bill that you have absolutely no way to pay. Then guess what, you get to declare bankruptcy.

And that's not even beginning to ask -why- we want the hospital to be supplying medical care that -could- have been handled for a tenth the cost by a GP at his office. But the GP won't see anyone who doesn't have either insurance or cash...and if he does, the pharmacy sure as hell isn't going to give you your meds unless you can pay.

So we get tens of thousands of people dying each year because they don't have insurance and can't afford care. But that's okay, because hospitals are required to treat them.

Every other industrialized country in the world can do it...but the richest one is too stupid or too incompetent to provide even minimal health care to all its citizens. It blows my mind that people can be so pessimistic about our country.

Most importantly, I wasn't suggesting that the current setup is in any way acceptable, only that what @ghark alluded to wasn't accurate.

Exactly what sort of life-saving surgery can be done at the GP's office? Or were you just trying to change the topic? Argumentum ad misericordiam.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Sure, they'll give you the surgery, if you survive the delays in getting around to it. And you're responsible for a bill that you have absolutely no way to pay. Then guess what, you get to declare bankruptcy.
And that's not even beginning to ask -why- we want the hospital to be supplying medical care that -could- have been handled for a tenth the cost by a GP at his office. But the GP won't see anyone who doesn't have either insurance or cash...and if he does, the pharmacy sure as hell isn't going to give you your meds unless you can pay.
So we get tens of thousands of people dying each year because they don't have insurance and can't afford care. But that's okay, because hospitals are required to treat them.
Every other industrialized country in the world can do it...but the richest one is too stupid or too incompetent to provide even minimal health care to all its citizens. It blows my mind that people can be so pessimistic about our country.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Most importantly, I wasn't suggesting that the current setup is in any way acceptable, only that what @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/ghark" title="member since September 30th, 2009" class="profilelink">ghark alluded to wasn't accurate.
Exactly what sort of life-saving surgery can be done at the GP's office? Or were you just trying to change the topic? Argumentum ad misericordiam.


I admit I was a bit surprised by that...I thought you were one of those unhappy with our system. Apparently I was just reading a bit too much into your statement here.

Is lifesaving surgery the only health care that counts? Many, if not most, types of care can be provided by a GP. Hospitals are for acute care. High blood pressure, diabetes, any number of chronic conditions, for example, are totally inappropriate for hospitals and yet utterly crucial for a healthy life. But hospitals are the only ones required to accept any and all patients, and even a brief look makes it clear that many hospitals do not (they have plenty of ways to game the system, legal or otherwise).