buddyIam
Erie Trip from Hobohemia - Big Rock Candy Mountain
Senior Member
Joined: 10/25/2002
View Profile
|
KIDD
My HMO plan is considerably better than both plans . But that is because California requires HMO's to cover SSDI recipients. If you have read L.D.'s post you will know that many states don't require this until after age 65. (each state has it's own insurance commission).
The Democrat plan is guarantied to be as good or better than most private insurance plans. And should result in much better coverage for me in my HMO.
The Republican plan offers no guaranties. And because it offers a monopoly to private industry. I would not expect any cost saving to my plan.
Here is a summery of the two:
About the Plans
The Democratic Plan
The Democratic prescription drug plan would add a new Part D in Medicare that provides voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries beginning in 2005. Because the plan would be part of the Medicare program, the benefits would be guaranteed. The basic benefit would have a $25 monthly premium, with a deductible of $100 per year. After the first $100 in expenditures, beneficiaries would be responsible for 20% of drug costs, with Medicare covering the remaining 80% of costs. All costs would be covered after a beneficiary spent $2,000 out-of-pocket.
The Republican Plan
The Republican bill does not guarantee any specific benefit. Instead, the Republican bill provides subsidies to insurance companies to provide private insurance to seniors. Individual insurers may design the coverage and set the premium. The assistance shown in the tables would only be available to beneficiaries who can find a private plan that offers the benefit described in the Republican bill. This benefit is described as follows: the benefit would have a $33 monthly premium, with a deductible of $250 per year. Beneficiaries would pay for all of the first $250 worth of drugs used, then pay 20% of the cost of between $251 and $1,000, and 50% of the costs of drugs from $1,001 to $2,000. After $2,000 worth of drugs are used by seniors, the plan would provide no further cost sharing until the beneficiary spent $3,700 out-of-pocket. All costs would be covered after a beneficiary spent $3,700 out-of-pocket. However, any amounts reimbursed by a third-party payer would not count toward meeting this catastrophic limit.
Information for Low-Income Seniors
Under the Democratic proposal, seniors with incomes below 150% of the poverty level will pay no premium. Seniors with incomes between 150% and 175% of the poverty level will receive a sliding scale premium subsidy. Both groups will pay nominal or no cost-sharing. Under the Republican proposal, seniors with assets of more than $4,000 will receive no additional assistance. Seniors with incomes below 150% of the poverty level and assets of less than $4,000 will pay no premium. Seniors with incomes between 150% and 175% of the poverty level and assets of less than $4,000 receive a sliding scale premium subsidy. In both cases seniors pay a flat fee of $2.00 or $5.00 per prescription. But once these seniors use over $2,000 worth of drugs the Republican plan offers no assistance in paying for the cost of drugs until they have spent $3,700 out-of pocket. This $3,700 must be paid by the individual, and any assistance from an employer-sponsored plan or other plan, or assistance from any charity, does not count toward the limit.
Prescription drug plan savings calculator:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/drug_plan/
|
buddyIam
Erie Trip from Hobohemia - Big Rock Candy Mountain
Senior Member
Joined: 10/25/2002
View Profile
|
Brun
Scare stories happen even in the best of hospitals. The heart from the wrong blood type transplanted into the young girl that died just a few months ago is one.
Are you saying no one should have transplants in America now.
I have never heard of such a thing happen in England or Canada before.
|
Jelly Bean
Huntington Beach, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/14/2002
View Profile
 Offline
|
Come one...the blood mix thing was a full on screw up! The toe thing was a known delay...amazing. Yep, I would contribute the death to that! As far as the "Hip Oath" several posts back; did you even read thru it bud? How can they do that? How about abortion today,...that is a huge break in the so-called medical oath.
*This Message was edited on 22-Apr-03 10:31 PM by Jelly Bean*
|
buddyIam
Erie Trip from Hobohemia - Big Rock Candy Mountain
Senior Member
Joined: 10/25/2002
View Profile
|
Jelly
Both deaths were the result of neglect. And yes, there are honorable people that do believe in that oath. And many, many doctors, who will not perform an elective abortion.
|
L.D.
Greenwood, Louisiana
Senior Member
Joined: 01/28/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
Now that I have let my emotions calm down over this thread, I am going to reply to the original 5thwheeler post.
The links he posted is nothing more than opinions of biased people with the same mindset he has.
Ms Clinton is a self serving, disbarred, not yet convicted criminal. She was not a politician while her husband was in office. She does not care about health care or New York. She cares about what she can skim from the people. Both she and her husband have lived off the government so long, they need their on base of taxpayers to support them. Until recently, all the housing they had shared during their married life was furnished by some government agency. Today, she is not paying for housing but has it paid for by admirers while she collects rent from the government for security housing built at taxpayer expense. Her time is coming and she will end up in jail just as she was disbarred from practicing law. She would be there now if it were not for the fact she was and is a former First Lady.
Her health care package sucked. It failed even with a Democratic controlled Congress. The only ones that wanted it were those that just love the Clintons.
I say this since health care is an important issue with my family and I have been heavily involved with health care reform since about 1992. The originator of this thread does not care nor is adversely affected by health care issues. He seeks only to stir a pot with a highly delusional mind while I seek real options and alternatives to prevent spending everything I have per year to keep one person alive and another under medical care in a Special Needs Center. This large outlay of cash that I pay now makes me very close to the matter.
Another regular contributor keeps making mention that HMOs vary from state to state and he is almost correct. I called to check on the CA insurance industry and was told that NO insurance company is required to accept a person with pre exisiting conditions in that state. If they do accept the person, their pre-existing condition will not be covered for at least two years and no expense related to that coverage will be paid. I was even asked why a company would want to take a risk on losing possibly millions and why would the State of CA force such a company to take a loss like that. CA does have a mandantory insurance acceptance plan but it is very costly, has a lot of exclusions and is designed to minimize insurance industry losses. I admit this is more than what Louisiana has.
Texas has the best plan for coverage of the chronically ill I have found yet. There are some limitations to qualifing for it but it is well worth the cost once you get on it.
I have looked closely at a lot of options. None are perfect or even close to being perfect. If we apply one plan over another, then the Republican offering is better for my needs. Yet there are advantages to both.
Also the bottom line is that the facts and figures of both plans have been incorrectly stated in a couple of places here.
It is easy one to sit back and spout political party affections and say how good it is. Even Hitler was praised by his followers. Saddam has backers but the rest of the world knows what these men were like. I do not care what party a person affiliates with. I do care about spending from $36,000 to $72,000 a year on health care for one individual.
Over the years I have been the driving force in getting laws changed in several areas. Some of my evidence offered in court caused laws to be changed and got me a permanent place in the WestLaw archives. Now I fight the health care problem. Not as a political party pusher but as a concerned citizen being adversely effected by the high cost of medical care.
My goals are simple . Get some mandantory government help for American citizens. Right now ALL my wife's expenses would be covered if she were an illegal resident from Mexico. Yet as a taxpayer, she is not eligible for any type coverage.
Next we need to have some reins placed on the drug companies and the medical providers. They are gouging the public in the USA. Some pharmacutical companies sell medicine in Canada and the UK for a third of what they sell it for in the US. The arthritis drug Enbrel is a good example. It sells for $1120 in US dollars in Canada to the end user but it cost a drug store in the US some $1480. Enbrel is made in the US and should be cheaper here.
Then we need to take the FDA out of the picture. There are drugs that have been proven effective with a minimal amount of side effects that have been in use in other countries for years but approval is still being sought in the US. FDA approval can cost a company hundreds of millions of dollars. Many drugs never make it to the public since the maker cannot pay the high cost of doing business with the FDA.
Now we are down to dealing with lawyers and the courts. Malpractice insurance (yes, I know I have to have it and this will affect me also) is through the roof due to attorneys filing suits because Grandma died. While Grandma was a nice lady she did have diabetes, cancer, a hematoma, was 200 pounds overweight and had not had a balanced meal in years. When Grandma died, she was found on the floor of the hospital and it is assumed she fell due to being unattended. The resulting lawsuit cost the hospital about $90,000 in legal fees, their insurance company about the same and the matter is settled for $10,000 just to get it to go away. Such as this drives the cost of medical care up. People can say what they want but the Democratic Party is supported by the American Bar Association. I get my monthly ABA mag and it is mostly talking about what the ABA has done for the Democratic Party and what the Party is doing for them. If we get the lawyers and courts out of the medical business, we will have cheaper health care. It is not malpractice just because Grandma did not heal as she should have.
I have no axe to grind with either of those that are tending to bring strife or political agendas here. My dog is in this fight purely out of personal issue. One of those here pushing a certain plan may genuinely feel it to be the best and it may be for his needs (although he has not said what connection he has with the issue). Another person with vocal comments on this issue does not have a dog in this fight but just loves the upheaval he can cause.
To me, this is a legitimate concern and one that is near to me and others. My email box was filled yesterday with comments and compliments about my stand on this topic since they are also in the same boat. It is not my desire to do anything other than let people know what they have the potential to face at any time in their life.
Just as the stock market and some retirement plans have caused many to return to the job market, the health care laws can force people into being in the care of the state and without any personal possesions. There are few, such as the Kennedy family, that can sustain a major illness without financial ruin. One major illness can wipe out a lifetime of saving, investments and personal holdings. I feel people need to be made aware of this and pay attention to it. As was said in another thread, this issue has cost me over $200,000 in the last 7 years and that is with insurance. Now the insurance is going away in April, I am going to be paying up to $6000 a month in medical cost. This hurts financially but also hurts when I see illegal immigrants being given totally free medicine and health care coverage. It may well be said I am taking this personally and I am but I feel it to be with cause. Some others that ssem to have an agenda here will have their reasons for such but I am not afraid to lay my reasons on the table.
*This Message was edited on 23-Apr-03 06:18 AM by L.D.*
|
|
|
Jim Miller
Pennsylvania in the Summer, Florida in the Winter
Senior Member
Joined: 01/08/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Who is Hillary?
|
roscoe
Priveledged resident of the gorgeous hudson valley
Senior Member
Joined: 08/15/2001
View Profile
|
Hillary is a person a lot mention when health care is mentioned. She or her husband are the whipping folks when there is a topic closely related to politcs or cleaning fish.
My point agreeing with L.D. on the health care problems is it would be nice to have a little input to perhaps solve the crisis. But then it is only a problem if it concerns you personally.
As with other threads the old Liberal vs Conservative claptrap gets going and the usual cast of characters with no suggestions turn it into a political rally.
L.D. with all your meetings with the authorities I think maybe some suggestions may be listened to and acted upon.Or at least I hope so. Although I am not in your situation, one never knows what twist of fate may bring.
I also feel our healthcare system has many problems and needs improvement. It was you that said your doctor got a fee from the drug company for prescribing Embrel am I correct? There is one way to start.Doesn't that sound a little crooked.
It's time for the folks that have no answers to start blathering now.Or maybe they will have some good suggestions.
Edited for spelling
*This Message was edited on 23-Apr-03 07:13 AM by roscoe*
|
csg11
Cincinnati
Full Member
Joined: 04/12/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
colo_crawdad, I stand on my position that I cannot think of a Government Program that is well run AND cost efficient.
There is no one more proud of our Military than me. It is the best in the world and we must maintain that status for our safety and freedom. It is also one of the few programs that our Government should actually be providing. The cost over-runs, however, are legendary and irrefutable. The money is often squandered and misdirected. Our soldiers and their families are grossly under compensated.
Gary
|
buddyIam
Erie Trip from Hobohemia - Big Rock Candy Mountain
Senior Member
Joined: 10/25/2002
View Profile
|
,
On edit: added one comma. 
*This Message was edited on 23-Apr-03 07:39 AM by buddyIam*
|
L.D.
Greenwood, Louisiana
Senior Member
Joined: 01/28/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
Roscoe,
There is a lot to be considered as being wrong but it is not crooked. Prilosec gives physicians $5 each time they prescribe it toward trips to places like Hawaii. These credits build up until the doctor has enough that the company sends he and his family for a week of all expense paid enjoyment. The doctor was paid by the patient. The patient paid for the medicine. Now the patients of the doctor collectively had paid for his families vacation.
Many companys give such perks to doctors. This only adds to the cost of healthcare and causes me to worry if the medicine is really needed.
But the healthcare plans are out there. Either plan would be better than no plan. The trouble is one plan addresses the causal user more than the other. A heavy user will favor the other plan. I could say that it would not matter which plan was adopted as long as one was taken. However, that is not the case. Once a plan is in place, it is difficult to make improvements to it and it has to be in place for years to determine the actual cost.
My meetings with government officials on all levels have done some good and I consider them to have been productive. Not much has been done yet but it is being addressed and that helps me mentally feel that something will soon be done.
Last year, a plan was in committe in D.C that would have combined the best features of both sides. It was a plan I could have lived with and I supported it in D.C. but some people felt it would give the current Administration credit for advancement in the healthcare area. There are those that are more concerned with party politics than with the good of the nation.
What I want to see is results, no matter which party is there. I feel we need a full change in the Legislature every so many years. Forget what is best for the Congressman and vote for what is best for the people.
You would not believe the perks I have seen these Congressional servents of the people get. They do not worry about who pays the bills. They only worry about what they can bring in to their own pockets. Each has a smooth line they offer to make you feel that they really care about your situation. I fell for this on my first meeting. I thought the Senator was genuinely concerned. He gave me a 10 minute speech about how he would get right on it and then I am ushered to his assistant. I later found this assistant was nothing more than a part time employee that was working while attending college and getting paid by the Federal government. It was not even a high level Page. Two months later, I called and actually got through to the Senator. He did not even remember me and gave the same speech he had previously but just by phone. I spoke to the man he had "put" on the project and found it was never discussed or acted upon. When I wrote this Senator a letter about my displeasure, he sent me the most glowing form letter thanking me for my support that I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
