SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Feb 3, 2011 0:29:28 GMT -5
And just to clarify, I have no problem with doctors and their earning a good income, I have a problem with greedy health insurance corporations. Doctors are pretty much victims as well, imo.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 3, 2011 0:39:04 GMT -5
Of course the patients use insurance, but you said:
So when you say "health care", are you only referring to the insurance companies? Because if doctors are going to make a profit, they need to charge more for services than those services cost them to provide. So are YOU advocating everyone pay cash and no insurance is involved? Or are you suggesting the insurance companies run their operations out of the goodness of their hearts, with no profits?
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Feb 3, 2011 0:46:11 GMT -5
Of course the patients use insurance, but you said: So when you say "health care", are you only referring to the insurance companies? Because if doctors are going to make a profit, they need to charge more for services than those services cost them to provide. So are YOU advocating everyone pay cash and no insurance is involved? Or are you suggesting the insurance companies run their operations out of the goodness of their hearts, with no profits? I am referring to the insurance companies. I believe that everyone should have access to an affordable public option. If the prefer, they can purchase private health insurance, or if they wish, they do not have to buy any insurance at all. I do not support the mandate.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 3, 2011 0:51:19 GMT -5
So you believe the health insurance companies should operate as non-profits? I'm really not sure what your position is here. Doctors and hospitals are reimbursed for their services by health insurance companies. If the insurance companies are not making a profit, how do they pay the doctors, pay the hospitals and still run their operation?
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Feb 3, 2011 0:55:46 GMT -5
So you believe the health insurance companies should operate as non-profits? I'm really not sure what your position is here. Doctors and hospitals are reimbursed for their services by health insurance companies. If the insurance companies are not making a profit, how do they pay the doctors, pay the hospitals and still run their operation? Health insurance companies price gouge on premiums. They do not reimburse doctors and hospitals adequately in my opinion. They also deny patients of necessary medical procedures and treatment. They simply hoard the profits.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Feb 3, 2011 0:55:48 GMT -5
Believe in the public option all you want. There is zero, zilch, nada chance of it happening. Public opinion is stronger against that today than ever before. The political trend is clearly against more centralized government in general, and against universal public health insurance in particular. The few neanderthal liberal statists who can't see that their ideology has been decimated won't change that.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 3, 2011 0:59:08 GMT -5
I'm still unclear about how health care can be a zero-profit industry, as you said you felt it should be. Please explain your proposal for making health care a non-profit industry...
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Feb 3, 2011 1:06:29 GMT -5
I'm still unclear about how health care can be a zero-profit industry, as you said you felt it should be. Please explain your proposal for making health care a non-profit industry... I think there should be a for zero profit option for all Americans (public option) If people wish to purchase for profit insurance (perhaps they think they will receive better quality care,) then by all means, they can purchase from private for profit health insurance companies. I see this as similar to public vs private education. I would never support the complete privatization of education nor turning education into a for profit business. Yet I support a private option for those who have the desire and means.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 3, 2011 9:20:04 GMT -5
I think there should be a for zero profit option for all Americans (public option) If people wish to purchase for profit insurance (perhaps they think they will receive better quality care,) then by all means, they can purchase from private for profit health insurance companies. I see this as similar to public vs private education. I would never support the complete privatization of education nor turning education into a for profit business. Yet I support a private option for those who have the desire and means. So do you want it to non-profit or governmental because you can have non-profit that is not governmental, and just because something is non-profit doesn't mean the CEO and employees can't make millions of dollars, because salaries are expense and not profits.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 3, 2011 9:26:15 GMT -5
They died. If you lived to the ripe old age of 65 you were doing well. Personally, if the pubs want to repeal healthcare reform I wouldn't have a problem with it IF in the same bill they made it possible for hospitals to turn away anyone, regardless of condition, who didn't have health insurance. Some people may not like having to purchase mandated health insurance HOWEVER I'm certain that many here resent having their insurance rates increase each year when hospitals have to increase their rates to pay for free loaders who expect to be saved when following a car accident they show up in the ER almost dead. Get health insurance, put up a bond or sign a living will stating that in an emergency you don't want to be saved. Without some kind of language like this, republicans are simply asking the rest of us to happily pick up the cost of irresponsible free loaders. Isn't requiring everybody to buy health insurance essentially the same thing? Pay me now or pay me later...either way, the responsible end up paying for the free loaders. What about food, water, clothing energy and shelter? Are these not equally important? I bet the majority could live longer without health care than most of the above. Where does it end?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 3, 2011 9:29:18 GMT -5
I am referring to the insurance companies. I believe that everyone should have access to an affordable public option. Affordable for who? Our government isn't exactly known for their well run low cost / high benefit social programs.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 3, 2011 9:44:39 GMT -5
I think there should be a for zero profit option for all Americans (public option) If people wish to purchase for profit insurance (perhaps they think they will receive better quality care,) then by all means, they can purchase from private for profit health insurance companies. Sounds like you want something similar to FL's Citizens (home) Insurance Corp...a state run home insurance carrier for all those in FL that are dropped by private companies. Sure, the rates are low...artificially. Every single floridian pays a fee to the FL Hurricane CAT Fund on their insurance to keep it that way....Whether it's Auto, Home, Boat, Motorcycle, RV, whatever...If you have FL insurance, you subsidize other FL homeowners when you pay this fee. God forbid we have another 2005 before reserves are built up...it'll likely bankrupt the state.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 3, 2011 9:53:03 GMT -5
I think there should be a for zero profit option for all Americans (public option) If people wish to purchase for profit insurance (perhaps they think they will receive better quality care,) then by all means, they can purchase from private for profit health insurance companies. I see this as similar to public vs private education. I would never support the complete privatization of education nor turning education into a for profit business. Yet I support a private option for those who have the desire and means. So do you want it to non-profit or governmental because you can have non-profit that is not governmental, and just because something is non-profit doesn't mean the CEO and employees can't make millions of dollars, because salaries are expense and not profits. This is only true as long as the market supports the high wages; The IRS can currently impose penalty taxes, called "intermediate sanctions," on an executive receiving excessive compensation from a charity. But the agency also has established a procedure, called the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness," that allows charities to avoid the penalty. To do so, the nonprofit must demonstrate its board approved the pay and used comparable compensation data from similar organizations to determine it, among other things.
Critics say the standard is loose and puts the burden on the IRS to show compensation is excessive. online.wsj.com/article/SB123811160845153093.html
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 3, 2011 10:35:13 GMT -5
So do you want it to non-profit or governmental because you can have non-profit that is not governmental, and just because something is non-profit doesn't mean the CEO and employees can't make millions of dollars, because salaries are expense and not profits. This is only true as long as the market supports the high wages; The IRS can currently impose penalty taxes, called "intermediate sanctions," on an executive receiving excessive compensation from a charity. But the agency also has established a procedure, called the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness," that allows charities to avoid the penalty. To do so, the nonprofit must demonstrate its board approved the pay and used comparable compensation data from similar organizations to determine it, among other things.
Critics say the standard is loose and puts the burden on the IRS to show compensation is excessive. online.wsj.com/article/SB123811160845153093.htmlOk..whats your point, as I said non-profits do pay there CEO's and other executives lots of money. I wanted clarification on whether it is a non-profit or government run option, there is a huge difference. A non-profit still has to break even and can't just raise taxes, the government can.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 3, 2011 10:45:30 GMT -5
This is only true as long as the market supports the high wages; The IRS can currently impose penalty taxes, called "intermediate sanctions," on an executive receiving excessive compensation from a charity. But the agency also has established a procedure, called the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness," that allows charities to avoid the penalty. To do so, the nonprofit must demonstrate its board approved the pay and used comparable compensation data from similar organizations to determine it, among other things.
Critics say the standard is loose and puts the burden on the IRS to show compensation is excessive. online.wsj.com/article/SB123811160845153093.htmlOk..whats your point, as I said non-profits do pay there CEO's and other executives lots of money. I wanted clarification on whether it is a non-profit or government run option, there is a huge difference. A non-profit still has to break even and can't just raise taxes, the government can. My point is that the salaries are controlled by the Market. The charity cannot decide to pay an inordinate amount to their executives just to eat away at a large profit as alluded to in the post. SweetVrginia can answer the question you directed to her.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 3, 2011 13:12:03 GMT -5
I am glad that 25 year old students can be covered through their parents
I agree with ed.It is sad.They should use the everyone in the US has healthcare plan. Parents should not be allowed to pay for coverage on them.Make them grow up and taste the real world.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 3, 2011 13:45:15 GMT -5
I agree and I doubt many would....especially the progressive crowd that desires the elimination of profit.
There may be some radical progressives who wish to eliminate all "for profit," but I do not think that is not the majority of us. I for one believe in private business, profit, entrepreneurship, etc. But there must be some regulation. I also believe that health care should not be a for profit business. Health care is too important to try to make money off of it. My opinion. I think I mentioned that a very close friends daughter has just graduated after five years study at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland..with her Doctorate in Medicine..now looking for a internship in Pediarics...her bill..what she owes for all her schooling over $300 thousand..I don't know if that is normal, low , high but it is a fact of life in this situation. Some how she has to pay this back...A job paying $50/60 thousand per isn't going to do it. I hope no one , except a few here who I would expect no less from, believe that those from the left are lobbying for non profit , state sponsored medical care. I am , all my friends, and many from the left, don't really talk about politics a lot, are all in favor of medical people making a superior income. They are skilled, spend years in study and also continue that after schooling is over and assume hugh financial costs in getting their skills and degrees. They are entitled and it is needed to fet the brightest to decide on that career path. Personally I feel they , as a group, have given back about as much, actually possible to much, to the government by the governments cut back on Medicaid and Medicare payments..to ask a business to cut over 23 % on their receipts and still be able to grow and survive just is not feasible. Insurances, salary's for employees, utilities for their offices, equipment, rent..keep going up, just look at your own bills for same items..yet the costs of medical is still climbing way out of proportion to where the average wages are going. What most of us who support the current medical bill want is coverage for those who don't have it..medical coverage. We feel it is a right , others believe it is a privilege, so there we disagree. One of the reasons brought up for having a new health intuitive was the fact that that is the only way to keep costs down , from spieling out of control so in not that many years..the costs for medical care covered by the government would rival that of our defense which most of us, who want a strong defense , but recognize it has gotten out of hand, compared to who our suspected enemies might be. No one said that medical costs would go down, just not rise as high as it would would if the bill hadn't been passed. While many people are covered now by employer supported Insurance coverage, what has been happening , realistically, because of rising costs, less profits, layoffs , less jobs , are employers cutting or eliminating their share of the coverage, or doing away with it in some cases, and in others forcing employees to pick up more of the medical costs. Then there are the loss of coverage as jobs are cut, less employments, the temporary Cobra , which is so expensive for so many, to expensive to continue on, expire. So while many who are covered now and are satisfied now, the ones who were in favor of the bill were looking to the future costs and realities , thus hoping the bill would alleviate these problems, not eliminate them, but alleviate the future expected costs. There there were some parts of the bill most rational people of both sides are in favor with. The disqualifying for Insurance by pre existing conditions. The dropping of coverage if certain illnesses arise. The coverage of children under their parent's policies till age 26 and many other features coming on line. While we like those and some say keep them in, can we actually do that with out having a larger bill to offset the costs of these items we are in favor of. Unless those who are against the bill really feel that the rising estimated costs of the health care in the country will not be going to the extremes suggested by so many of the experts on the subject, that coverage for those not insured, suggested numbering 30 million..give or take a few, really is a problem that the response of ", tough , so sorry, but thats the way the cookie crumbles..go check out the ER, see what they can so for you" is appropriate, and the rest of the package items, to numerouse to list, are not necessary and there really is no medical problems in the country, the naysayers are just blowing smoke, I have a hard time understanding all the unrelenting attacks toward the bill unless it's primarily motivated because the wrong party and POTUS initiated and supported it, thus the reason is primarily driven by politics. If so , then we are in more trouble as a country then is has been led to be believed. {Really sorry for the length, tried to make it easier to read by the paragraphs but had a lot on my mind on the subject..me bad , I know, and not bothering to read..understand. }
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 5, 2011 14:48:59 GMT -5
Yes, with 2 exceptions. Mandating everyone to buy health insurance should increase the insured pool substantially enough that rates actually decrease for the rest of us. (insurance companies get to spread the risk over a much larger percentage of the population) Second, by insuring everyone the chance of catching health problems earlier is much greater than waiting for someone to show up in the ER. What could hav been discovered and treated fairly inexpensively turns out to be rather costly when it's not discovered until years later.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 5, 2011 15:39:26 GMT -5
I think it is helpful for students to have insurance on their parents policy. If something happens to them when young, it could bankrupt them for many years. Our son didn't need it, he joined the military, stayed in for 10 years and also had his college degree paid for 100% while in and after getting out. It served him and us well. We should go back towards real insurance in the medical field where it only covers after a fairly large deductible is met, instead of the model where you just pay a co-pay. In that type of model the student could easily buy that type of insurance. We have seen a lot of innovation, availability and afford ability in both vision corrective surgery and cosmetic surgery two areas that traditionally have not had any insurance. These fields have had to do this to thrive. And i see no over riding reason that this same principle (no insurance except for extreme expenses) wouldn't work in the medical field. It would require quite a bit of changes but I think it would be doable.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Feb 6, 2011 13:43:47 GMT -5
To once again state the obvious, if Obamacare is so Good why are there so many waivers against it? Why are there over 2 million people, (besides the 20 million federal employees and congress), who Obama has let off the hook? Bottom line, when family size is considered, if Obamacare is so good, why is it that 50 million Americans are exempted from it? Could it be because they have political clout? You can just imagine who will get the next favored Obama treatment. See more on it at "ObamaCare waivers jump from 222 to 729 covering 2.2 million employees" at: hotair.com/archives/2011/01/26/obamacare-waivers-jump-from-222-to-729-covering-2-2-million-employees/
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 6, 2011 15:15:17 GMT -5
To once again state the obvious, if Obamacare is so Good why are there so many waivers against it?
Once again to answer for those too busy to research it themselves, "it", as in "waivers against it", refers to the annual cap on spending under some existing low cost insurance plans, typically provided to part time employees. "It" is not all of Obamacare and all waivers against "it" expire and must be rejustified annually UNTIL 2014 when waivers against "it" will no longer be allowed.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 6, 2011 15:27:31 GMT -5
They hoard the 3% that they earn from investment income between premium receipt and claim payment.
The private insurance industry also subsidizes the public industry currently, so they over pay doctors and hospitals as Medicare under pays by as much as 20%.
Denying only comes into play when one has an HMO. HMO's started as non-profits but that was so disastrous that they had to quickly turn to for profit to make the business model sustainable.
There are plenty of non-profit insurance companies. And in this country, people are free to choose them for their insurance needs. But don't expect to save a great deal of money over the for profit counterpart; premiums are pretty equal between the two.
The importance of a mandate to have insurance is that you can't have guaranteed insurability without it. Think about it. How can an insurance company insure risk when people, with no mandate, get insurance only when they become seriously ill?
It might benefit you to do some research on healt h insurance. Your posts wouldn't come across so uneducated on the topic. [/size]
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Feb 6, 2011 15:48:27 GMT -5
Thank you zip, But you seem to be saying that those waivers, initially provided to unions, are in place becuse the benefactors of the waivers only have low cost, low benefit insurance. If that is your theme, then it would seem the recipient members should be asking their COO's why they don't have better insurance. On the other hand it seems they just, (for as long as it can be dragged out), don't want to pay their fair share of the projected costs. In short, it looks like Obama has given about 50 million people the right to look for the other 250 million to subsidize their health care as long as Obamacare is on the books. This is just one more reason that Obamacare should be terminated asap. """"""....This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employer who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan. In other words, the 729 organizations who have received waivers are not seeking refuge from an unintended consequence, but from the costs associated with one of ObamaCare’s features. The real question is what these businesses will do once the waiver program comes to an end. ...""""""
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 10, 2011 23:23:01 GMT -5
Thank you zip, But you seem to be saying that those waivers, initially provided to unions, are in place because the benefactors of the waivers only have low cost, low benefit insurance. If that is your theme, then it would seem the recipient members should be asking their COO's why they don't have better insurance.
No that's not what I'm saying, in fact quite the opposite, the unions/companies seeking waivers, in addition to other plans they offer have some lower cost plans which are offered to typically part time employees who might not otherwise qualify for any type of healthcare. To allow these companies to continue paying for these plans the waivers exist which prevent the union/corporate spend from increasing.
On the other hand it seems they just, (for as long as it can be dragged out), don't want to pay their fair share of the projected costs.
It can't be dragged out beyond 2014 when the full law goes into effect. Then all annual caps will end.
In short, it looks like Obama has given about 50 million people the right to look for the other 250 million to subsidize their health care as long as Obamacare is on the books. This is just one more reason that Obamacare should be terminated asap.
In short is about the only way you can draw that conclusion because if you take the time to look in detail you'd understand that what you are saying isn't true. In 2014 the waivers disappear and so do these low cost healthcare plans. However, in 2014 plans without caps will be the only plans available and those plans will be subsided for people who can't afford them. The subsidy is paid for by excise taxes on equipment manufactures whose equipment is paid for by the insurance companies based on pricing that has already been negotiate with those companies. The excise tax of 2.5% is peanuts compared to the influx of 50 million newly covered citizens into the marketplace. Terminating Obamacare because of the current waivers make about as much sense as terminating it because of death panels. The real question is what these businesses will do once the waiver program comes to an end.
No, the real question is when are the republicans get around to cutting spending and creating jobs. They don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare, the country doesn't support their redefinition of "rape", many of the cuts they have suggested will weaken the country's infrastructure....they just don't seem to get it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 11, 2011 0:33:48 GMT -5
Thank you zip, But you seem to be saying that those waivers, initially provided to unions, are in place because the benefactors of the waivers only have low cost, low benefit insurance. If that is your theme, then it would seem the recipient members should be asking their COO's why they don't have better insurance.No that's not what I'm saying, in fact quite the opposite, the unions/companies seeking waivers, in addition to other plans they offer have some lower cost plans which are offered to typically part time employees who might not otherwise qualify for any type of healthcare. To allow these companies to continue paying for these plans the waivers exist which prevent the union/corporate spend from increasing. On the other hand it seems they just, (for as long as it can be dragged out), don't want to pay their fair share of the projected costs.It can't be dragged out beyond 2014 when the full law goes into effect. Then all annual caps will end. In short, it looks like Obama has given about 50 million people the right to look for the other 250 million to subsidize their health care as long as Obamacare is on the books. This is just one more reason that Obamacare should be terminated asap.In short is about the only way you can draw that conclusion because if you take the time to look in detail you'd understand that what you are saying isn't true. In 2014 the waivers disappear and so do these low cost healthcare plans. However, in 2014 plans without caps will be the only plans available and those plans will be subsided for people who can't afford them. The subsidy is paid for by excise taxes on equipment manufactures whose equipment is paid for by the insurance companies based on pricing that has already been negotiate with those companies. The excise tax of 2.5% is peanuts compared to the influx of 50 million newly covered citizens into the marketplace. Terminating Obamacare because of the current waivers make about as much sense as terminating it because of death panels. The real question is what these businesses will do once the waiver program comes to an end.No, the real question is when are the republicans get around to cutting spending and creating jobs. They don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare, the country doesn't support their redefinition of "rape", many of the cuts they have suggested will weaken the country's infrastructure....they just don't seem to get it. Zipity few here will agree with you because they don't like the message but your correct..Obamacar could use some tweaking, when has a government program not needed tweaking as experience comes into play. In fact in business, when has a business plan not been tweaked when certain projections didn't pan out as was expected. Prigrams added, programs terminated, plants consolidated, built..a program like this to be expected to be perfect out the gate? Just not pheasable. The RX program D under medicare, every year it's tweaked, changed as experience changes. So many are saying no because they know nothing about the plan. There are people on this board that have no health coverage, because of their income levels they and their families would be covered for coverage as well as I am., with good health coverage and their cost would be nil yet they are against the program. Pure crazy, so many don't understand. are worried and would rather support some talking head who is from a party they support whether they have a plan or not, rather then a plan that was worked for over a year and be a hugh improvement over what they have know , especially those who have no or poor coverage. I give you a
|
|