The Obama Administration thread

[norway]

Wow if you compare our persident to Hitler then you are fucked up

Hehe, wouldn't be the first.

I wasn't tho, Hitler was a big crock/gangster, I was saying socialism= nazism essentially.

[D]

So what is this public option they are now going to take out of the health insurance??

I haven't kept up with it enough and don't have the time to research it

what does this mean?

[Jdog0830]

Wow if you compare our persident to Hitler then you are fucked up

Hehe, wouldn't be the first.

I wasn't tho, Hitler was a big crock/gangster, I was saying socialism= nazism essentially.

k but still im sick of people saying shit that our persident is like Hitler or Joseph Stailand its pissing me off

[sandman]

So what is this public option they are now going to take out of the health insurance??

I haven't kept up with it enough and don't have the time to research it

what does this mean?

i'm kinda surprised no one that supports this idea has answered your question. so i'll provide a very brief explanation as i understand it.

it's a public insurance plan that would compete with the private plans (those offered by insurance companies). the thought is that the public plan would have lower administrative costs (a key expense and a major challenge for health insurers), and as a result could offer insurance at a lower price. this increased "competition" from the public plan would force insurance companies to lower their premiums.

[freedom78]

So what is this public option they are now going to take out of the health insurance??

I haven't kept up with it enough and don't have the time to research it

what does this mean?

i'm kinda surprised no one that supports this idea has answered your question. so i'll provide a very brief explanation as i understand it.

it's a public insurance plan that would compete with the private plans (those offered by insurance companies). the thought is that the public plan would have lower administrative costs (a key expense and a major challenge for health insurers), and as a result could offer insurance at a lower price. this increased "competition" from the public plan would force insurance companies to lower their premiums.

If you don't mind my adding on, another feature would be that the public option would accept all applicants.  Out of the 45-50 million people without insurance, here's a pretty simple way to break them down:

(1) People who want insurance but are denied coverage
(2) People who want insurance but cannot afford coverage
(3) People who do not want coverage

The idea of reforming health care in this country is to regulate such that (1) cannot happen, to lower costs such that (2) does not happen, and to mandate coverage so that (3) doesn't keep piling costs onto everyone else.  The reason this can occur is because a public option would not be operating on a for profit basis.   

Also, if I can distinguish between this and "socialized medicine", I'd say that what we generally mean when we say "socialized medicine" is something like the public option, but in such a way that it is not competing with private insurance.  To extend the mail metaphor that's been hopping around lately, it's as if USPS did our shipping, and UPS/FedEx/Etc. were prohibited.  This system is called "single payer", because the government is the sole payer of all medical expenses.  Under single payer, you wouldn't buy your own coverage or have your employer provide it for you.  It would be provided by the government, you wouldn't even have to sign up...it would just be there automatically.  So the public option is quite different from socialized medicine.  It's the addition of a government run plan to the larger market of health insurance.     

[sandman]

So what is this public option they are now going to take out of the health insurance??

I haven't kept up with it enough and don't have the time to research it

what does this mean?

i'm kinda surprised no one that supports this idea has answered your question. so i'll provide a very brief explanation as i understand it.

it's a public insurance plan that would compete with the private plans (those offered by insurance companies). the thought is that the public plan would have lower administrative costs (a key expense and a major challenge for health insurers), and as a result could offer insurance at a lower price. this increased "competition" from the public plan would force insurance companies to lower their premiums.

If you don't mind my adding on, another feature would be that the public option would accept all applicants.  Out of the 45-50 million people without insurance, here's a pretty simple way to break them down:

(1) People who want insurance but are denied coverage
(2) People who want insurance but cannot afford coverage
(3) People who do not want coverage

    

does that 46M include non-citizens? and if so, what category would you put them into? will the public option be required to cover them?


here's obama's changing tune on the public option...

Obama on June 23, 2009: "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange?including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest,"

Obama on August 15, 2009: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform," he said. "This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

the public is now against the public option 47% to 43%.

[Vicious Wishes]

Wow if you compare our persident to Hitler then you are fucked up

Hehe, wouldn't be the first.

I wasn't tho, Hitler was a big crock/gangster, I was saying socialism= nazism essentially.

k but still im sick of people saying shit that our persident is like Hitler or Joseph Stailand its pissing me off

You do realize they called Bush Hitler for years, right?

[freedom78]

So what is this public option they are now going to take out of the health insurance??

I haven't kept up with it enough and don't have the time to research it

what does this mean?

i'm kinda surprised no one that supports this idea has answered your question. so i'll provide a very brief explanation as i understand it.

it's a public insurance plan that would compete with the private plans (those offered by insurance companies). the thought is that the public plan would have lower administrative costs (a key expense and a major challenge for health insurers), and as a result could offer insurance at a lower price. this increased "competition" from the public plan would force insurance companies to lower their premiums.

If you don't mind my adding on, another feature would be that the public option would accept all applicants.  Out of the 45-50 million people without insurance, here's a pretty simple way to break them down:

(1) People who want insurance but are denied coverage
(2) People who want insurance but cannot afford coverage
(3) People who do not want coverage

    

does that 46M include non-citizens? and if so, what category would you put them into? will the public option be required to cover them?


here's obama's changing tune on the public option...

Obama on June 23, 2009: "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange?including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest,"

Obama on August 15, 2009: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform," he said. "This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

the public is now against the public option 47% to 43%.

I suppose they would get their own category?  Don't know, really.  If they're getting care and not paying for it, it jacks up costs just as much as it would if a citizen did so.  And, of course, there are also legal aliens who aren't citizens.  I don't know enough about this aspect to really say much about it.  I suppose you could stand on principle and say that citizens shouldn't be paying for illegal aliens but the problem is that you pay one way or another, whether by them benefiting from the plan or from them not paying and passing along costs.  The less costly of the appears to be the one we can't stomach...so much for being pragmatists.   

And I agree that he's walked it back some.  What's not clear is whether it's part of a plan to negotiate it away or to focus on other cost saving measures.  Possibly both, I suppose.

As far as the polling, I don't know if that's the NBC poll, but the same poll shows gross ignorance about the plan (which isn't much of a surprise, given how much the anti-reform movement is relying on misinformation).  In other words, people are against a plan very different from any being proposed in reality.

Wow if you compare our persident to Hitler then you are fucked up

Hehe, wouldn't be the first.

I wasn't tho, Hitler was a big crock/gangster, I was saying socialism= nazism essentially.

k but still im sick of people saying shit that our persident is like Hitler or Joseph Stailand its pissing me off

You do realize they called Bush Hitler for years, right?

In general, unless you're talking about a tyrant or genocidal act, the Hitler references are just silly and they make those using them seem out of touch and extremist in their own regard, whether in criticism of this or prior Presidents.

[D]

Not to sound like a conceited narcissistic asshole, but I consider myself to be pretty intelligent and If this shit confuses me, I can't imagine how every other everyday American  must feel.


I wish they would break it down in easy to understand terms.

Why not just let the people who are happy with their insurance keep it and then run like a Free Clinic kind of deal for people who can't afford it.


At my last job, I had Dental Insurance but u could only get 1 filling a year but free cleaning twice a year.

so maybe they could do it in a way where people wouldn't abuse it every time they got a sniffle.

I think if they could do a healthcare for major stuff, most would be happy.

If I break my leg and don't have Insurance, I can get it fixed, if I have a heart attack, they will do surgery, If I get in a bad accident, my hospital bills will be covered. That type of stuff.

[Jdog0830]

Wow if you compare our persident to Hitler then you are fucked up

Hehe, wouldn't be the first.

I wasn't tho, Hitler was a big crock/gangster, I was saying socialism= nazism essentially.

k but still im sick of people saying shit that our persident is like Hitler or Joseph Stailand its pissing me off

You do realize they called Bush Hitler for years, right?

yeah but i didnt like that either but Bush was vary stupid and thats a fact

[freedom78]

Not to sound like a conceited narcissistic asshole, but I consider myself to be pretty intelligent and If this shit confuses me, I can't imagine how every other everyday American  must feel.

I wish they would break it down in easy to understand terms.

Why not just let the people who are happy with their insurance keep it and then run like a Free Clinic kind of deal for people who can't afford it.

At my last job, I had Dental Insurance but u could only get 1 filling a year but free cleaning twice a year.

so maybe they could do it in a way where people wouldn't abuse it every time they got a sniffle.

I think if they could do a healthcare for major stuff, most would be happy.

If I break my leg and don't have Insurance, I can get it fixed, if I have a heart attack, they will do surgery, If I get in a bad accident, my hospital bills will be covered. That type of stuff.

I think dental is probably much easier, due to the smaller scope and fewer number of routine procedures.  Cleanings, fillings, root canal...those are likely the most common.  Maybe braces? 

Anyway, I agree that catastrophic insurance is the minimum we should have.  But some of those catastrophes could be fixed earlier if the person is insured all the time.  And fixing things ahead of time is almost always cheaper.  Besides...what's the point of going to the doctor for a cold or the flu?  They can't do anything for you.  So, yes, we need people to exercise some common sense.  Some will, some won't. 

As for the free clinics...one of the things people worry about is being able to see the doctor of their choice (not that they can now, if they have an HMO).  That choice would be seriously limited with free clinics, not to mention that relying on a volunteer force of doctors would mean getting treatment from someone different every time.  While free clinics can be great for people with nothing, they don't measure up to the quality of care someone with good insurance can get.

Also, it's confusing for two main reasons.  First is that, at any given time, there have been three different bills in different committees and different houses of Congress.  That's a lot to juggle.  Second is the campaign of lies.  They want people to be confused.  Even if you don't believe what they say, if they can confuse us they win because confusion confirms our worst fears about how government might handle running healthcare. 

But the truth isn't all that confusing...here are the features:

(1) Regulation
---fixing the "pre-existing condition" and other denials of coverage
---raising standards of coverage (i.e. what is covered, how big your deductible/copay is, etc.)

(2) Competition
---creating a health care exchange of private plans that meet certain standards into which people and businesses can buy
---creating a public option (i.e. government backed insurance) that operates on a not-for-profit basis and does not deny people access
     ---this serves two purposes: (a) to lower private insurance costs by making them compete with a non-profit plan and (b) getting as many people covered as possible, thus diminishing the amount
     of unpaid medical bills that are passed on to us through higher doctor/hospital fees and, thus, higher insurance premiums

[D]

I really think it is impossible though. Insurance premiums are high because I bet a lot of hospitals really abuse those insurance cards and I remember Obama speaking on that.

If u have insurance, they will run every test imaginable on you.

Reminds me of when I was 16 and my mom had Insurance on me. I went to the Dentist and they found 4 cavities and I didn't go back to get them filled.

Went back when I was 22 with no insurance and they found 0 cavities..

I knew a girl whose kid fell and got a knot on his head. Hospital did 5 CAT Scans and yes she had a medical card.

5 CAT scans. Really?

Hospitals' Greed mixed with people abusing it will guarantee this will never work out.

I don't agree with the "U can't choose" your doctor thing either. If u are poor and have no Insurance and break your leg, be thankful it is getting fixed. Beggars can't be choosers.

They could have different levels of Insurance.

Like the Premium Insurance is  the Insurance u have now which is a VIP insurance that allows u to go to whomever you choose, whenever you choose but it is more expensive.

Then have a lower Insurance type deal where u are covered, but you get whichever Doctor is available and if it is something non life threatening, they schedule you kind of like in Canada.

[D]

Not to sound like a conceited narcissistic asshole, but I consider myself to be pretty intelligent and If this shit confuses me, I can't imagine how every other everyday American  must feel.

I wish they would break it down in easy to understand terms.

Why not just let the people who are happy with their insurance keep it and then run like a Free Clinic kind of deal for people who can't afford it.

At my last job, I had Dental Insurance but u could only get 1 filling a year but free cleaning twice a year.

so maybe they could do it in a way where people wouldn't abuse it every time they got a sniffle.

I think if they could do a healthcare for major stuff, most would be happy.

If I break my leg and don't have Insurance, I can get it fixed, if I have a heart attack, they will do surgery, If I get in a bad accident, my hospital bills will be covered. That type of stuff.

I think dental is probably much easier, due to the smaller scope and fewer number of routine procedures.  Cleanings, fillings, root canal...those are likely the most common.  Maybe braces? 

Anyway, I agree that catastrophic insurance is the minimum we should have.  But some of those catastrophes could be fixed earlier if the person is insured all the time.  And fixing things ahead of time is almost always cheaper.  Besides...what's the point of going to the doctor for a cold or the flu?  They can't do anything for you.  So, yes, we need people to exercise some common sense.  Some will, some won't. 

As for the free clinics...one of the things people worry about is being able to see the doctor of their choice (not that they can now, if they have an HMO).  That choice would be seriously limited with free clinics, not to mention that relying on a volunteer force of doctors would mean getting treatment from someone different every time.  While free clinics can be great for people with nothing, they don't measure up to the quality of care someone with good insurance can get.

Also, it's confusing for two main reasons.  First is that, at any given time, there have been three different bills in different committees and different houses of Congress.  That's a lot to juggle.  Second is the campaign of lies.  They want people to be confused.  Even if you don't believe what they say, if they can confuse us they win because confusion confirms our worst fears about how government might handle running healthcare. 

But the truth isn't all that confusing...here are the features:

(1) Regulation
---fixing the "pre-existing condition" and other denials of coverage
---raising standards of coverage (i.e. what is covered, how big your deductible/copay is, etc.)

(2) Competition
---creating a health care exchange of private plans that meet certain standards into which people and businesses can buy
---creating a public option (i.e. government backed insurance) that operates on a not-for-profit basis and does not deny people access
     ---this serves two purposes: (a) to lower private insurance costs by making them compete with a non-profit plan and (b) getting as many people covered as possible, thus diminishing the amount
     of unpaid medical bills that are passed on to us through higher doctor/hospital fees and, thus, higher insurance premiums

Reading this, I don't see what the problem is. Sounds really great on paper. I think people are skeptical though and think there has to be some type of catch. Why wouldn't people want this?

I bet the Insurance Companies are lobbying the hell out of Washington D.C. right now.

[pilferk]

Not to sound like a conceited narcissistic asshole, but I consider myself to be pretty intelligent and If this shit confuses me, I can't imagine how every other everyday American  must feel.


I wish they would break it down in easy to understand terms.

Why not just let the people who are happy with their insurance keep it and then run like a Free Clinic kind of deal for people who can't afford it.


At my last job, I had Dental Insurance but u could only get 1 filling a year but free cleaning twice a year.

so maybe they could do it in a way where people wouldn't abuse it every time they got a sniffle.

I think if they could do a healthcare for major stuff, most would be happy.

If I break my leg and don't have Insurance, I can get it fixed, if I have a heart attack, they will do surgery, If I get in a bad accident, my hospital bills will be covered. That type of stuff.

Here's the problem with only doing catastrophic coverage:

People will then not pursue healthcare options UNTIL it is catastrophic.  That's not good for the patient, and it's not good for the taxpayer.  It's bad for the patient because the longer you wait for treatment, the harder it is to treat, the longer it takes to treat it, the more likely there will be further complications during treatment, and ultimately, the more expensive it becomes to treat.  THAT means that the "burden" of healthcare costs would be greatly increased on the taxpayer, which, obviously, would be bad for them/us.

In essence, we see this now.  Those that can't afford healthcare wait until the LAST possible second to seek treatment...essentially until whatever ails them has gotten so bad they just can't ignore it anymore, function anymore, or until they're carted off in an ambulance.  They then go to their local walk in clinic, hospital (which can't turn them away if they are gravely ill, at least til they're stable) or what have you.  They get treatment, but they STILL can't pay.  Now, rather than the facility "eating" what would have been a routine visit if the patient had been able to seek care early on, they're "eating" an extensive hospital bill.  That's not good for anyone...trust me.

I hate to use the analogy but:

You pay $20 bucks to change your oil or $3,000 to replace the engine. 

The same tenet is VERY true when it comes to healthcare.  And, if you want to minimize costs for the taxpayer, you absolutely want to include coverage for the little stuff, including check-ups, etc...because it's far cheaper to cover those costs than it is to underwrite the costs of the "catastrophic" event.

[pilferk]

I really think it is impossible though. Insurance premiums are high because I bet a lot of hospitals really abuse those insurance cards and I remember Obama speaking on that.

If u have insurance, they will run every test imaginable on you.

FYI, that's illegal, immoral, unethical and I can tell you for a FACT it isn't SOP at our facility.  We actually have a "hotline" at our facility for employees so they can report that type of thing. I can't remember, in the 10 years I've been here, of ever hearing about a case where it's occurred.   I don't know about other facilities...or how they operate....but I'd be SHOCKED if it's allowed to go on in most facilities....especially the really big, well known, places.  There are always shady places, so I'm not going to sit here and tell you it never happens.  And I'm not going to tell you docs don't do it in their private practices because they may...I don't know.  But the accusation you made is pretty broad, and I can tell you it's not nearly as prevalent as you're suggesting.

Your symptoms determine your tests.  Your diagnostic staff (be it in the ED or on the floors) don't even know your payor status until well after you're admitted.  Once you're on the floor, I've heard the thought process.  It's not "lets abuse this guy's insurance and do everything we can to make money".  Rather it's "This guy is uninsured, his family has expressed there is a financial hardship...lets REALLY consider whether we want to run the $2000 test on him unless we REALLY think we have to and can't get the information in another way".    The docs (sometimes to the chagrin of our finance folks) are NOT going to tailor a patients care to their finances (if the test is necessary, it gets run)...but they will be considerate of the patient's situation if they can.   I've NEVER heard it be about "the patient can't pay the hospital, so don't do it"...it's been about "do we really need to saddle this guy with any more medical bills than we have to".  Should they do the same thing with insured patients, and be just as cautious?  Maybe....It's something that IS wrestled with, I can tell you that.  Not so much in terms of a quality of care situation, though.  It's NOT greed, though, that fuels the decision, though, IMHO.  It's expeditiousness vs "patient burden", with the consideration heavily weighted toward "patient burden".

Reminds me of when I was 16 and my mom had Insurance on me. I went to the Dentist and they found 4 cavities and I didn't go back to get them filled.

Went back when I was 22 with no insurance and they found 0 cavities..

Same dentist?  It's tough to say whether it was the practice or your ability to pay.....either way, I'd avoid that first practice like the plague.  Anyone who treats things that can cause life-threatening infection like that should (and could, if they were an MD...not sure when it comes to DDS) lose their license.

I knew a girl whose kid fell and got a knot on his head. Hospital did 5 CAT Scans and yes she had a medical card.

5 CAT scans. Really?

If she had a head bleed, subdural hematoma, or a host of other issues....that sounds completely reasonable.

See, the ultimate problem is that patients don't really understand medicine.  It's like legal work or an auto mechanic.  It's very easy to worry about, or to feel, lilke you've been bilked largely because you're not sure exactly what's gone on, exactly what's necessary, and exactly what a reasonable amount to pay is.

Without a whole host of information, it's sorta reckless to speculate that the procedures were done simply to make money.  If your friend's kid had a hematoma (even a small one), and they were monitoring it's reduction to make sure it didn't cause an infarction or stroke...you'd never know. 

Hospitals' Greed mixed with people abusing it will guarantee this will never work out.

I don't agree with the "U can't choose" your doctor thing either. If u are poor and have no Insurance and break your leg, be thankful it is getting fixed. Beggars can't be choosers.

I think people are sometimes incredibly naive when it comes to "hospital's greed".  We're a not for profit, so "greed" is kinda pointless.  Many public hospitals are the same way.   Most "for profit" hospitals (and most of them start with a "Saint") operate in a very narrow band of black.  Don't believe me?  There's plenty of information out there showing it's true.

I also don't agree with the "Beggers can't be choosers" rationale.  You're now arguing that the poor:

1) choose to be poor
2) Because they're poor don't deserve access to equal quality care of those with more means
3) Because they don't have access to equal quality care "deserve" to be sicker and have lower quality outcomes.

I just can't buy into that.

They could have different levels of Insurance.

Like the Premium Insurance is  the Insurance u have now which is a VIP insurance that allows u to go to whomever you choose, whenever you choose but it is more expensive.

Then have a lower Insurance type deal where u are covered, but you get whichever Doctor is available and if it is something non life threatening, they schedule you kind of like in Canada.

The caste system has not worked well, so far, in this country.  I'm not sure perpetuating it by giving those with more means better quality care (and, thus, better chances at survival, successful treatement, etc) would be the way to go....

[pilferk]

Reading this, I don't see what the problem is. Sounds really great on paper. I think people are skeptical though and think there has to be some type of catch. Why wouldn't people want this?

I bet the Insurance Companies are lobbying the hell out of Washington D.C. right now.

Because the Republicans are fighting like hell to get in the way.  They're spreading some misinformation, fostering confusion, and generally being contrarians.

And, while I'm sure the conservative brethren posting in this thread will disagree, and cite principal wrote and verse, my SUPPOSITION is that you hit the nail on the head as to WHY in your last line.  I don't think it's any secret that the Health Insurance companies are largely contributors to, and supporters of, the Republican party.

Others, I'm sure, will argue that it's all in the name of pushing a leftist principal a bit more toward the center...and that the ends justify the means.  Even in THAT argument, I'm not sure I agree.

[freedom78]

I really think it is impossible though. Insurance premiums are high because I bet a lot of hospitals really abuse those insurance cards and I remember Obama speaking on that.

One of many things that need fixing.  One part of cutting costs is to eliminate repeat tests from different doctors (i.e. instead of one MRI at the initial doc and one at a specialist, just send the damn pics!)

If u have insurance, they will run every test imaginable on you.

Reminds me of when I was 16 and my mom had Insurance on me. I went to the Dentist and they found 4 cavities and I didn't go back to get them filled.

Went back when I was 22 with no insurance and they found 0 cavities..

I knew a girl whose kid fell and got a knot on his head. Hospital did 5 CAT Scans and yes she had a medical card.

5 CAT scans. Really?

This is why dental insurance can be much simpler, though.  Usually it pays for two cleanings, one set of Xrays, and then has a max per annum.  Also, some dentists are of the "fill 'em early" mindset on cavities.  And if they were minor they can be reversed somewhat.

As for the 5 CTs, let me add something as someone who's had these tests.  If they're looking for something in you like cancer, they may do a pelvic, abdominal, and chest CT.  You're in the machine one time, but this is actually three completely separate tests.  Now, I don't know this girl and maybe they did multiple out of greed or out of failure to do it right the first four times.  Who knows?  But it isn't out of the realm of possibility that, in having a "full body" scan, you might have 5 CTs.

Hospitals' Greed mixed with people abusing it will guarantee this will never work out.

I agree it's a problem, but much less of one that the greed of insurance companies. 

I don't agree with the "U can't choose" your doctor thing either. If u are poor and have no Insurance and break your leg, be thankful it is getting fixed. Beggars can't be choosers.

Breaking a leg is one thing, and I'd bet most people aren't too picky about their care in that situation.  A true illness, however, is entirely different. 

[sandman]

it does sound good on paper. but then you have to consider cost (and more importantly, taxes).

also, a key facet of the plan is this new competition from the public plan, as if 1,300 health insurers in the U.S. is NOT enough competition. or should i say at least i THOUGHT that was a key facet, until i heard Obama speak this week.

nothing scientific, but about 3/4 of those responding to CNN's online poll say they are confused about the health care plans being debated.

Republicans have been clear. no public option. you can agree or disagree, but it sure doesn't seem like obama feels too strongly one way or the other.

[sandman]

(CNN) -- Are you confused by all the back and forth on health care reform? Here's a guide to some of the terms commonly tossed about in the debate.

Blue Dog coalition: The Blue Dog coalition is a group of 52 fiscally conservative Democrats in the House. The Blue Dogs insist that health care reform should preserve patient choice and maintain competition in the marketplace without adding to the national deficit. They'll play a critical role in getting a bill through the House.

Co-op: Nonprofit health cooperatives, or "co-ops," are being proposed as an option to compete with the private sector and as an alternative to a government-sponsored public health insurance option. Co-ops are owned and governed by the same people they insure.

Electronic records: President Obama wants to computerize all records within five years as a way to increase quality of health care and decrease costs. Under his plan to modernize health care, all health records would be standardized and electronic.

End-of-life counseling: The current version of the House bill contains a provision for end-of-life counseling for Medicare beneficiaries who want it. The House bill allows for coverage of such appointments as long as an individual has not had an end-of-life care or advance care planning consultation within the last five years. The idea has been a sticking point in the health care debate, as critics have likened it to a step toward euthanasia and "death panels."

Gang of Six: The Gang of Six is a group of members of the Senate Finance Committee who are trying to craft bipartisan health care legislation. The gang is made up of Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. The Republicans are Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Health insurance exchange: Obama says any health care bill he signs must have a health insurance exchange, which he defines as a "one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans -- including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest -- and choose what's best for your family." The term refers to the marketplace of the health insurance options.

Health care rescission: Health care rescission is the process by which insurers cancel coverage, often after finding that a person omitted pertinent information on his or her application. Some companies have been accused of improperly rescinding policies as a way to avoid paying for expensive treatments.

House Energy and Commerce Committee: The House Energy and Commerce Committee is key panel that passed a health care reform bill just before the August recess. The bill, House Resolution 3200, has not been taken up by the full chamber. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, chairs the committee.

Mandated coverage: Some lawmakers have proposed mandated coverage, which would require all Americans to get a minimum amount of insurance. The mandate could be enforced with a tax penalty.

Medicare/Medicaid: Medicare and Medicaid are public health options. Medicare is a government-sponsored program for people 65 years or older. Medicaid is a health care program for low income individuals and families.

"Obamacare": A term used, often derogatorily, to describe Obama's health care proposals.

Private insurance: Private insurance is coverage offered by a company other than the government.

Public option: A public option is a government-funded, government-run health care option, similar to Medicare. Under the plan, people would pay premiums 10 to 20 percent less than private insurance. Some Democrats have said it will be impossible to pass a bill without a public option, but some Republicans have called the idea a deal-breaker.

"Rationing" care: Critics of Obama's health care proposals claim that his plan will lead to a rationing of care, by which care would be distributed according to need. Obama insists that his plan will expand access, not decrease it.

Senate HELP committee: The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions drafted the one health care reform plan that has been introduced in the Senate.


Single-payer: Under a single-payer system, the financing system relies on one "payer" -- which could be a government-run agency -- to fund all health care costs billed by doctors, hospitals and other health professionals.

"Socialized" health care: Critics charge that Obama's health care proposals will lead to a government takeover of health care. They fear that private insurers would be driven out by a public option, leading to health care system entirely run by the government.

[pilferk]

it does sound good on paper. but then you have to consider cost (and more importantly, taxes).

To be more clear...you have to consider the increased tax burden and compare it to the potential decrease in insurance premiums.  If it's a zero sum equation or better....there'd not be much to complain about.

also, a key facet of the plan is this new competition from the public plan, as if 1,300 health insurers in the U.S. is NOT enough competition. or should i say at least i THOUGHT that was a key facet, until i heard Obama speak this week.

Last night's press seemed to indicate the White House has re-pledged it's commitment to the public option.  I don't know if Obama was talking about a "worst case scenario", or what.  But it sure seems like they still want it itn.

As for the 1300 health insurers being competition....here's the issue:  It's a completely incestuous form of competition....and they really compete in name only.  Policy, procedure, service levels, denial rates, and premiums are almost 100% standard across the industry....as are the whopping profit margins.  The insurance companies don't try to do better because, largely, they are employer (not employee or consumer) driven in their 'sales".  They don't need to put out a better product than their competitors, or compete on price...all they have to do is convince the HR exec at BibbityBoppity Inc that their product is going to be "good enough" for the employees.  The initial bid might compete on price (by dollars, at best, per employee), but there is no provision in most contracts about them raising rates in the successive contracts or years...and most employers are NOT going to change companies mid-stream.  It's too hard to do and too complicated.  In essence, the industry has made itself insular largely by it's own nature....and it's escaped wholesale regulation to reign it in.  At this point, you have to FORCE the industry to actually compete, and not simply be a complacent money printing operation.

nothing scientific, but about 3/4 of those responding to CNN's online poll say they are confused about the health care plans being debated.

Republicans have been clear. no public option. you can agree or disagree, but it sure doesn't seem like obama feels too strongly one way or the other.

I think you'd find that 3/4 of people, in general, would be confused when asked to explain the specifics of their own current health plan.  It's complicated, complex stuff and I'll agree: The dems have done a HORRIBLE job fighting the battle of public opinion, stemming the tide of misinformation, misconception, and the like.  Part of that, I think, is there has been no clear "line in the sand" proposal for them to get behind and explain.  The other part is that the Repubs are just plain better at the "mongering" than the dems are at battling it.  That's not news (or shouldn't be news) to anyone.

Repubs have been clear about what they don't want.....but seeded misinformation about exactly what that is, and seeded confusion about what it is the dems DO want.  Essentially, the Repubs don't want ANYTHING.  They want the status quo....they might be willing to ACCEPT some change, but from their proposals/rhetoric, they're offering token "sweet nothings" at best.  Just enough for people to not point at them and label them complete contrarians who are trying to get in the way.  But nothing of any real substance.

And you can't, with a straight face, look at me and say that our health care system...specifically our PAYOR system....works all that well.  Unless by "works all that well" you mean "makes huge profits and provides as little as they possibly can get away with", which is great if you're a stockholder.  Not so great if you're a customer or even a facility who is getting paid by them.