Has anyone seen the org chart for Obama's health plan?

ETWolverine · Jul 24, 2009, 08:08 AM

Here it is.

http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

Also, as a JPG:

Can anyone make heads or tails of this?

If I have an issue with my health care and want to call someone in the government health care system to discuss the issue, who do I speak to?

I know that some larger companies, including large insurance companies, have some pretty confusing org charts. Still, most companies have a call center, and yu can generally find out who your account manager is, pretty quick.

But can anyone follow this monstrosity?

This is the greater efficiency that is gonna save us all that money?

Elliot

NeedKarma · Jul 30, 2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

...it's just a shame that John Edwards isn't in the Senate for that discussion.

He's too busy having extra-marital affairs and children out of wedlock.

ETWolverine · Jul 30, 2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

This is, as Steve pointed out, a good question.

Here are a list of some good fixes for the health care system.

1) Medical Savings Accounts
2) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
3) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
4) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties.
5) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
6) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
7) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
8) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
9) I like Tom's idea of a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
10) Keep the government out of running health care!!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.

THESE are my ideas of how to fix the health care system. Each of them (except #3) is a free-market solution. Even in cases where the government is chipping in the money, the individual is being allowed to choose their own coverage.

You asked. These are some of the answers.

Elliot

tomder55 · Jul 30, 2009, 10:34 AM

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

ETWolverine · Jul 30, 2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

That sort of falls into #10... keep the government out of it. Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.

Quote:

12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

Excellent idea. It sort of follows my idea of letting those on unemployment insurance form their own groups for collective bargaining with the insurance companies.

Go know... me agreeing with a NY Dem.

tomder55 · Jul 30, 2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.

I should've given proper credit to Rep. John Shaddegg for the competition across state lines idea.

Critics of the private insurance argue that there are only a few big companies that dominate the market reducing choice. This is true ;but it was again ,gvt intervention that caused it to be so. Read the testimony from Greg Scandlen, President of Consumers for Health Care Choices back before Congress in 2007 . He explains the unintended consequences well.
Testimony of Greg Scandlen President Consumers for Health Care Choices

Quote:

All of these regulations, however well-intentioned, add to the cost of coverage. Moreover, many carriers found it expensive and difficult to comply with all the varying requirements of many different states, especially as the requirements changed from year to year. As a consequence, many carriers decided to get out of the health business and sold off their blocks of business to larger carriers who could afford the compliance costs. This is the primary cause of concentration in this market.

Scandlen suggests giving insurers the option of being federally chartered .

speechlesstx · Jul 30, 2009, 02:23 PM

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

And speaking of competition, Pelosi went ballistic on evil insurance companies...

Quote:

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

As she prepares to send her members home for the month of August having not voted on a healthcare bill — a deadline the Speaker said she would meet for President Obama — Pelosi said she was urging those members to go on the attack against the private insurance industry to try to rally support for the strongest public option possible when negotiations resume in September.

“The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it, and especially if you’re talking about a public option, because that’s where the insurance companies are making their attack,” Pelosi said. “Our members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier, has made costs spiral upward, and for whom that is coming to an end.

“It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” added Pelosi, who stood outside her office long after her press conference ended to continue speaking to reporters, even as aides tried in vain to usher her inside. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure with pre-existing conditions, you know, the litany of it all.”

I can't imagine why an insurance company would want to fight back against a government monopoly (AKA "competition") that will drive them out of business. How dishonest can the Dems get on this, invoking "competition" as a means to push a sweeping anti-competitive program, using the lure of "choice" to end your ability to choose and self-righteously accusing others of fear-mongering while engaging in the very same?

And what another lie, claiming "The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it" when clearly public support for Obamacare is tanking because the more they know, the more they realize how badly Obamacare sucks.

asking · Jul 30, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

speechlesstx · Jul 30, 2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

Did you read tom's post?

excon · Jul 30, 2009, 03:53 PM

Hello again:

It occurs to me that we DO have an interest in our neighbors health. After all, bugs DO migrate. They'll infect you or your wife or your children, and they don't care which side of the debate you're on.

Do you, Elliot, take cabs or ride the subway in NY??? Do you take a train to Jersey, perhaps? Ooooh, I'm not sure if I would do that. Be afraid, people. Be really, really afraid.

The funny thing is, what I'm telling you to be scared of is REAL.

excon

Skell · Jul 30, 2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You think not?

You are equating the death penalty for criminal who is found guilty by a court of law with a JURY OF HIS PEERS with an intentional abuse by a single politician who's sole goal is to eliminate a political opponent who committed no crime?

And you don't see a difference between the levels of power involved? One requires application of the legal system. No one man has the power to pervert that system. The other is extra-legal, as in OUTSIDE the legal system, wherein one influential person can undermine the system for political or personal gain.

We are talking about the difference between applying the law to punish criminals and prevent crime and abuses of power by politicians in order to stifle political opposition. You see no difference between the two?

This is a pretty poor argument, Skell. I think you can recognize that.

Elliot

I can see the difference but i wasn't arguing.

If you live in a system where a politician could possibly abuse his power like that then a lot more needs fixing than simply your health care..
Wow, i cant believe you think that could actually happen and no one would do anything about it. It's sad that you have to live in such a society. Good luck to you.

Or is it simply that you are trying to scare people??