Comments on Real Honest Thinking: The House Health Care Bill: The First 100 Pages

Patrick, on the question of maternity care, do you...

2009-07-31T12:00:01.907-04:00

Patrick, on the question of maternity care, do you really think that it's not in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expecting mothers? You don't have any kids in school, but your taxes go to fund education, or do you think that education spending is also a waste of money? And fyi, I'm happy for my tax dollars to pay in part for male-only health-related issues: prostate cancer treatment, for example. As a woman, I have no problem with that because it is to the benefit of society as a whole. Sex discrimination should not have a place in health care.

I know you probably think the NYT opinion page is a bunch of left wing crazies, but read Nick Kristoff's column from yesterday on the subject of maternity care. As he says, "If men had uteruses, 'paternity wards' would get resources, ambulances would transport pregnant men to hospitals free of charge, deliveries would be free, and the Group of 8 industrialized nations would make paternal mortality a top priority." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/opinion/30kristof.html

One thing I'd like to point out, and one thing...

2009-07-30T22:52:59.479-04:00

One thing I'd like to point out, and one thing I'd like some numbers for (Patrick) is regarding covering the uninsured.

The uninsured get care already (outcome is only 15% dependant on coverage). So, an uninsured person goes to the ER, we spend $1K, $2K, whatever on this visit (we=the insured who pay higher premiums due to cost shifting, portion of property/sales taxes, etc...).

So this amount is paid for by us. What I would like to know is what percentage of the uninsured actually go to the ER? I would imagine that number is quite low when compared with the total uninsured population. Is it cheaper to cover these people when the actually go for care, or is it cheaper to cover ALL of them with a basic policy whether they use it or not? I would think it would be much more expensive to cover everyone, but I'd like to know for sure.

By the way, I look forward to your further analysi...

2009-07-30T17:26:51.915-04:00

By the way, I look forward to your further analysis. You are definitely hitting on some key points that are very valid problems.

Your Page 16 argument has been analyzed as false b...

2009-07-30T17:25:32.736-04:00

Your Page 16 argument has been analyzed as false by many credible sources. Go check PolitiFact and search for "Limitation on new enrollment" to get the article.

Page 42 establishes the ability of welfare-level people to enroll. We are already paying for this anyway when uninsured people go to an emergency room for care.

Your other points MAY be accurate, I don't know at this point though. It's a VERY confusing and vague situation.

Page 44 reads "suspension OF ENROLLMENT", not suspension of the plan... Big difference.