Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
VERBATIM from bill H.R. 3590
|
I'm going to assume the quotes you give are what you say they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
So, The Secretary, “Federal Government,” in conjunction with the Doctors, and the Stake Holders, or insurance companies shall all work together to discuss how best to get you out of the hospital as quickly as possible and reduce your return, (obviously this will save them money, correct) All sounds good until you realize the control they will have in this process of “helping you to get better swiftly and stay that way, lets see how they will so graciously help you.
|
What it really says is that The Secretary, et al "shall develop reporting requirements" for use by a "group health plan" (etc) - ie, the insurance company uses the reporting requirements. Which, given that nothing I've read overturns patient privacy laws, means reporting not on specific people, but on the system as a whole- trends, outcomes, etc.
What are they reporting on, exactly?
"...plan or coverage benefits and health care provider reimbursement structures that..." "(A) improve health outcomes through...."
- various methods, nothing sinister
‘‘(B) implement activities to prevent hospital readmissions..."
- "hospital readmission" means they didn't fix me the first time and I had to go back. Sounds like a good thing to prevent.
‘‘(C) implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors..."
- Improving patient safety and reducing medical errors are good.
‘‘(D) implement wellness and health promotion activities."
- Also good.
I don't see anything bad here - if there was something to indicate the patient privacy or doctor/patient privilege were being overridden, then it would indeed be catastrophic - but the text of the bill that you quote here plainly states that the reporting is on the *benefits* or *reimbursement structures* that the insurance companies provide - not on patients themselves.
Unless there's something in the next section you quote. Let's go take a look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
So we will have “highly trained” individuals who will obviously be in this more for “our blessed help” than their own money, quotas, or answering to the Government and the Insurance company as to why they failed and you became a burden once again on the new governmental health care system.
|
For what it's worth, the phrase "highly trained" does not appear in the part of the bill you cite, nor does "our blessed help".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
You will be monitored as they will do everything within their power to reduce the number of readmits, as well as the number of admits to begin with.
|
Again, nothing you've quoted even hints that individuals will be monitored or reported on in any way - the reporting is on the insurance companies plans, and how those plans effect patient outcomes and health. The reports could describe which plans include a smoking cessation program, and the effectiveness of the same, which can be studied without violating patient privacy in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
You can bet your PCM(your new Primary Care Manager) will document if you smoke, drink, exercise, etc…. and this information will be available to other “professionals” who will attempt to reduce health care uses by reducing health risk issues.
You will be that health care risk, somebody will be contacting you to help you with your problems, so as to help all our people reduce the health care bill you must also participate not only in your share of payment but in your share of healthy lifestyle participation, so all Americans can live a better life, you to must participate in these programs, or maybe we will penalize you. These go hand in hand.
If you think this will stop at your door step and you can remain anonymity in the new nation of “support” I fear you will be greatly disappointed, It comes to my attention to ask all of you who think this is the greatest gift, to tell me how many times you have had a governmental agency show up at your doorstep because you receive assistance from their funding, it is a mandatory inclusion to have physical social assistance directives arrive knocking when you receive free assistance from the government, we have let them pass it, and when they come knocking, you will be required to open your door.
|
Again, I don't see anything that violates patient privacy here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
Why do I say this, my son received assistance for speech therapy through the government as a Tricare benefit referral by my governmental paid Dr. Before any assistance was granted, I had to submit to a in house meeting with the speech therapist and a home counselor, then we had weekly to bi-weekly in home speech therapy for over a year, when he enrolled into government paid child assisted programs for children with developmental disabilities, again before he was admitted an in home interview was required.
|
Ok, so this is true government-provided healthcare - not regulated private insurance like what the bill is talking about. Nothing in the bill has anything to do with 'government provided' healthcare. This bill is not about government healthcare at all - there is not even a public option In your situation, the government-provided healthcare came with strings attached - things to help ensure that patient compliance is high. Even in this case, I don't see anything that violated your privacy - I'm guessing that patient privacy laws for your son's medical records were not violated. You probably had to maintain compliance with the treatment plan in order to continue to receive free care. I'm also guessing you had the option to seek private care for your son at your own expense at any time, free of any government interference (except, for instance, the government regulations on the healthcare providers, like the aforementioned privacy laws, and requirements that the provides be certified and otherwise regulated).
By the way, I want to be clear that I'm not judging you for not being able to afford coverage for your son, if that is in fact the case - when my first son had severe asthma, I couldn't afford care either, and I was very glad for the government-provided care that he could get, despite all of the things that I could complain about in regards to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
The government is going to take every opportunity to protect its assets and by that it needs to assure its investments are sound, you will be its investment, you will be sound.
Ask me about social services and how lovely that arena is, how great the governmental agencies of care and fostering for the safety of your children are. There is simply nothing as great as private practice, private assistance, private, private, private. That privileged assistance will become an exclusive club retained only for those who can afford it, and after all these new taxes and fees and mandated purchases, we will all be broke so don't expect any privacy, especially if you ask for help.
The realities of what you are signing away when you receive you brand new Health care Card with your special number will be less a gift and more a responsibility to the government, don’t you remember the most fundamental saying in situations of fraud, if it sound to good to be true…… and NOTHING, NO, NOTHING IS FREE.
|
Having to rely on government assistance sucks - as it should! If the government really provided for everything we need, there would be little incentive for us to better ourselves. As it is, the only thing that the government is providing for you in this bill is a subsidy - so you can afford buy private, private, private insurance. The bill also introduces various regulations on the insurance companies, preventing them from doing various 'evil' things. It also, *also* provides a big, big stick for us - if we don't buy insurance, we get hit with a hefty tax. I like taxes about as much as you do, but I understand the reason for this one - just as I might be fined for engaging in risky behavior such as speeding on the interstate or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, I'm taxed for rolling the dice on my health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
There is still a lot more of this bill to read, and yes I will interpret it from the viewpoint I feel best answers my questions, but at least I am questioning this “law” I am not just looking to the sky and dancing for the new free bandages falling from it.
|
To be honest, it seems to be that you're taking the point of view that the government is out to get you, and hunting for things in the bill that could be interpreted that way. I take the point of view that the government is neither good or evil, but made up of people who mostly care about America, and want what's best for the country and it's citizens - I might disagree completely with their philosophy and approach, but I still think they're mostly on our side.
---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
I have noticed a lot of people complaining about the personal mandate. I understand the sentiment behind this and why it would make some feel uncomfortable, but the policy logic is extremely compelling.
To be specific, the personal mandate and the coverage of pre-existing conditions go hand in hand. It is difficult to have the latter without the former, else the revenue model breaks down.
If we cover pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, then people can sit back and wait to get ill before acquiring insurance. Then, because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, the insurance company is forced to take you and begin paying out for you immediately. The trouble is that the incentives create a situation where at any given time, everyone who is paying their premiums is drawing 10-100x that amount in benefits, while those who would normally represent the healthy many, whose premiums ordinarily subsidize the sick few, would have an incentive to stay out of the picture. After all, why bother paying insurance unless (until) you are sure you will use it?
The plan is not even remotely affordable without the personal mandate. The mandate is necessary for the bill to be economically sound.
|
I agree and understand, but I would still rather something like a public option in place to go along with the mandate - it seems to me that something like that would help keep the private insurance companies in line.