deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 9, 2011 20:41:07 GMT -5
My family does not qualify for free stuff, and we barely get by. This means, of course, that we will not qualify for FREE Obamacrap..excuse me, care.. so--- where will that leave us?? With fines?? Not able to pay our bills?? OR will we be forced on to Obamacrap..excuse me, care.. then offered some food stamps to make up the difference?? Nope-- you can keep you not free insurance. We do not want to be indentured slaves to the Democratic party. We are all progressing as well as we can on our own. The more the stupid gov't gets out of the way and lets us grow the sooner we will be able to afford our own healthcare. My family does not want to be on any gov't list besides the IRS-- which is, also, not optional. Enough is enough, and taxes are enough as it is. You guys go line up for gov't healthcrap, excuse me, care-- if you want, but leave us alone. From what I understand you will be under the plan...not sure if you can opt really. If once in place, you go to a emergency room for any treatment , not sure here, but they will want to get paid, I am thinking the ones in charge of accounts payable will do what needs to be done so they are paid , so they don't eat another $7000. { Iknow they offered a you said a deal for $700 in lieu if paid right then and there, that is not the point. "My family does not qualify for free stuff, and we barely get by. This means, of course, that we will not qualify for FREE Obamacrap" Iyou may be correc, I think your wronf from what i have read of it, if a person, family can't afford it, no income, to little income, then Federal will pick up the cost. Times get better, then yes , you will have to pay what your income says you should toward it. The rest of your post, haven't a clue what your talking about....but thanks for your response, I was just pointing out why I have been confused with your dissing a program that could be so much help for you and yours...and how I couldn't understand that. I still don't understand that and believe you really know little of what the prograsm is about, the big thing was to get 30 million non insured , insured, and you and yours dfall into that catagory, so it was more for you then I, I am fully insured and covered. O found this, think it would be where you and yours may fll into..so there are provisions...naturally above , one has to pay a fee. "MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the tab for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:56:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 20:50:40 GMT -5
You don't qualify for any free stuff? So you make over 45K... do you live in a high cola?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 9, 2011 21:05:17 GMT -5
It would seem to me that it's quite reasonable to expect a company providing insurance, and collecting premiums to provide same, be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of collected premiums toward coverage and quality improvement. If they can't do it, they probably don't belong in that business. It's called having cheaper premiums...you know, kind of what the whole Obamacare thing was supposed to be about. Smaller premiums means less money for overhead. $800/month premium - covers $640 of healthcare costs at 80%, with $160 left over for overhead $400/month premium - covers only $240 of costs (60%), with the same $160 of overhead Now which one is more affordable??? My god, people don't even understand the math involved in this issue...no wonder our country is in a powerdive to bankruptcy.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 9, 2011 21:17:32 GMT -5
Actually, we're talking about 1 BILLION in premiums, 850 million used for care...ay caramba..
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 9, 2011 21:19:23 GMT -5
I find this very unfortunate. This was requested by our Tea Party governor "Kiss my A" LePage on behalf of a second tier insurance company that provides cheaper high deductible plans to people who can't afford regular insurance. This is a step backwards. It sucks but at least it's just temporary- the way I read it everything happens in 2014 regardless and the waivers are only to give time for the exchanges to be set up so when the big monopoly insurers threaten to pack up it won't matter. The bigger mystery is why in the hell are they running a 65% loss ratio in the first place. More evidence the insurance based system is fatally flawed. We need a nationwide opt in for Medicare- I wonder how the insurance companies would react to that one? As a side note Medicare has a 97% MLR. Medicare's 97% is bullshit...the medicare employees wages and benefits are not paid out of medicare taxes. Not to mention the cost of the buildings and facilities are most likely not paid through the taxes. Insurance company's overhead would be just as low if they had a separate fund they could pay for all of that stuff to bs the populace. And, again, 65% is not that much IF THE PREMIUMS ARE LOW! Hello!!! Lower premiums means more of the percentage of premiums are required to fund overhead. Which would you rather have: 3% of $10,000 or 60% of $1000? I guess our public education really IS failing on math... Oh, and yes, let's let everyone on Medicare - that awesome program that is LOSING $60 BILLION DOLLARS a year due to waste, fraud, and abuse. I love how pro-government insurance groupies demonize an insurance company for $2 billion in profits but could care less that the government wastes 30 times that amount every year...gotta love it!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:56:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 21:25:11 GMT -5
lmao at the justifications.... please post the link to how premiums in Maine have been going down/ are so much lower than the rest of the country/ are expected to drop the next three years...
How is 1 in 3 dollars going to admin good? ... its a crazy percentage...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 9, 2011 22:02:53 GMT -5
Actually, we're talking about 1 BILLION in premiums, 850 million used for care...ay caramba.. If one can get that high in %, 85 %, I think thats a good deal.....i doubt they will be able to.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 9, 2011 23:27:08 GMT -5
It's called having cheaper premiums...you know, kind of what the whole Obamacare thing was supposed to be about. Smaller premiums means less money for overhead. $800/month premium - covers $640 of healthcare costs at 80%, with $160 left over for overhead $400/month premium - covers only $240 of costs (60%), with the same $160 of overhead Now which one is more affordable??? My god, people don't even understand the math involved in this issue...no wonder our country is in a powerdive to bankruptcy. You sure don't get the math- your argument makes no sense at all. Cheaper premiums are offset by changes in deductibles, coverage limits, etc. and is based on actuarial study. The administration costs are not affected in that way.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 9, 2011 23:37:39 GMT -5
Medicare's 97% is bullshit...the medicare employees wages and benefits are not paid out of medicare taxes. Not to mention the cost of the buildings and facilities are most likely not paid through the taxes. I love how pro-government insurance groupies demonize an insurance company for $2 billion in profits but could care less that the government wastes 30 times that amount every year...gotta love it! Sorry, I have heard that same counter before and it wasn't true then. 97% is about right- here is a peer reviewed scientific journal article on administration costs in the US and Canada- old but accurate- much to low on private insurers considering the way they operate now: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033#t=articleI have no problem with an insurance company making 2 billion, I have a problem when to make that 2 billion they are complicit in a system that causes people to suffer and die, go bankrupt, etc. in order to do so. Their disgusting recission policies alone make me sick, not to mention the other BS tactics they employ to get out of payment. Get rid of them all.
|
|
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 Mar 10, 2011 8:29:44 GMT -5
Actually, the deal Obama gives small business is so good thousands of them are signing up NOW. But keep repeating Pub/Foxcrappe... Sure...they're dropping health coverage for employees because the "fines" cost less. It's a great deal for business.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 10, 2011 10:07:00 GMT -5
Medicare's 97% is bullshit...the medicare employees wages and benefits are not paid out of medicare taxes. Not to mention the cost of the buildings and facilities are most likely not paid through the taxes. I love how pro-government insurance groupies demonize an insurance company for $2 billion in profits but could care less that the government wastes 30 times that amount every year...gotta love it! Sorry, I have heard that same counter before and it wasn't true then. 97% is about right- here is a peer reviewed scientific journal article on administration costs in the US and Canada- old but accurate- much to low on private insurers considering the way they operate now: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033#t=articleI have no problem with an insurance company making 2 billion, I have a problem when to make that 2 billion they are complicit in a system that causes people to suffer and die, go bankrupt, etc. in order to do so. Their disgusting recission policies alone make me sick, not to mention the other BS tactics they employ to get out of payment. Get rid of them all. The article does not answer the question. AGAIN!!! WHAT...COSTS...ARE...INCLUDED...IN...THAT...3% No one can say - but I bet it doesn't include payroll, benefits, facilities, etc as they are a government institution that uses other money to fund such things. So apples and oranges comparison. include wages, pensions, benefits, building/office expenses, WASTE and every other bit of overhead that the private insurance companies must include and let me know the TRUE percentages are and then we can talk.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 14:09:10 GMT -5
You forgot fraud
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 10, 2011 17:42:45 GMT -5
The article does not answer the question. AGAIN!!! WHAT...COSTS...ARE...INCLUDED...IN...THAT...3% No one can say - but I bet it doesn't include payroll, benefits, facilities, etc as they are a government institution that uses other money to fund such things. So apples and oranges comparison. include wages, pensions, benefits, building/office expenses, WASTE and every other bit of overhead that the private insurance companies must include and let me know the TRUE percentages are and then we can talk. So what do you think would be included in administration costs if you take out payroll, office expenses, benefits? If none of that is included it would be 0% administration. Even so, Canada I think was something under 2% administration! Read the article- look how much extra administration costs are borne by the care providers dealing with the myriad of insurance companies versus one payer-it is nothing but a senseless waste of health care dollars that could be going to provide actual care. What is so bad about a single payer/private provider system? If the rates are fair, it would cause competition to provide the best service. Everyone becomes a paying customer and admin only has to deal with one set of rules and forms.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 10, 2011 17:50:18 GMT -5
You forgot fraud Sure, everyone knows there is no fraud costs in private insurance. This is America- the whole country was built on fraud and is run by fraudulent entities who defraud the American people regularly. Nothing is immune from it.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 10, 2011 17:52:32 GMT -5
Sure, everyone knows there is no fraud costs in private insurance.
which would you say has more private or govt? or are they about even?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 10, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
BTW since you keep mentioning math- you should know administration costs are not linear-and it should not surprise you at all that such a large program runs a lower percent than a smaller one- and that considering the goal- at least my goal to provide every citizen with basic health care coverage for life-it only makes sense to have 1) the largest risk pool possible with 2) the lowest overhead- which means- wait for it- one risk pool with everyone in it and one administrator. This is not advanced math.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 10, 2011 18:03:52 GMT -5
The article does not answer the question. AGAIN!!! WHAT...COSTS...ARE...INCLUDED...IN...THAT...3% No one can say - but I bet it doesn't include payroll, benefits, facilities, etc as they are a government institution that uses other money to fund such things. So apples and oranges comparison. include wages, pensions, benefits, building/office expenses, WASTE and every other bit of overhead that the private insurance companies must include and let me know the TRUE percentages are and then we can talk. Here is a study on the subject: www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdfI just skimmed it, but it says if you include hidden overhead costs, then medicare is really at 5.2%. Then shows that a large group insurers average 12.3%, small group = 23%, & individual = 30% - lower if you take out some of their overhead costs. I think the paper was trying to show that private insurance & medicare have more similiar costs than people think, but I don't really see it when I read through the numbers because I don't see how you can just discount some of the overhead items that private insurers have to pay. I don't know though.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 10, 2011 18:07:33 GMT -5
which would you say has more private or govt? or are they about even? The government obviously- they have the deepest pockets. There is fraud in every corner of the government. You have the little ones- welfare abusers, the medium ones- RICO type organizations, and the big fish- defense contractors and the like. When it comes to the government everyone has their hand out- GOP, Dems, whoever. There is not a wealthy person in this country that hasn't benefited from some government largess. Only one way to stop fraud in government- don't have one.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 18:19:03 GMT -5
We don't need government to direct how a company spends its money. Government's ONLY legitimate roll is to enforce the contract, and ensure that the insurance company lives up to its end of the bargain. It is not to write the contract, set the coverage, dictate the premiums, or determine if, when, or what kind of policy the consumer should have.
Government meddling in the healthcare market is what got us into this mess, further meddling won't improve the situation-- and it's not designed to fix it anyway. It's designed to wreck it, and then blame the free market, and then take over-- we saw this pattern in the mortgage / housing / financial crisis in a big way, and to a lesser extent in the airline and auto industries. Government COMPLETELY ruined the passenger rail industry. We ought not be open to any more government created crises.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 10, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
We don't need government to direct how a company spends its money. Government's ONLY legitimate roll is to enforce the contract, and ensure that the insurance company lives up to its end of the bargain. It is not to write the contract, set the coverage, dictate the premiums, or determine if, when, or what kind of policy the consumer should have. I disagree- when the private sector fails to deliver essential services on such a large scale, it is legitimate for the government to intervene to promote the general welfare. Contracts depend on arms length negotiation and good faith and fair dealing between parties- that does not exist. Health insurance contracts are adhesion contracts, and if the GOP has their way, the policy holder will not have the right to sue at all. Do you honestly believe it is an equitable system to pit an average consumer against a legal department if they decide to breach? You think everyone can afford a lawyer and years of their life to fight a claim (all the while getting sicker if they can't afford to pay out of pocket)? People now do not have any real choice- they get what their employer offers-and even more egregious, become trapped in their jobs because of coverage issues. If they go solo, open their own business, unless they are in perfect health-they probably aren't going to be able to get a policy-and if they do it probably isn't worth the paper it is written on and costs a fortune. There is nothing wrong with the government shining a light on the stink from these companies- mandating clear language on coverage, giving people options through exchanges, allowing 100% portability, getting rid of arbitrary denials, policy maximums,and other provisions that kick people when they are already down. If the insurance industry wants to be in this business, then it is going to have to play by the rules set up to keep them honest and provide useful, dependable coverage. Obama fell short- a public option was critical- but at least these reforms are solid enough to prevent the worst abuses these scummy companies have been getting away with for so long.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 23:18:09 GMT -5
We don't need government to direct how a company spends its money. Government's ONLY legitimate roll is to enforce the contract, and ensure that the insurance company lives up to its end of the bargain. It is not to write the contract, set the coverage, dictate the premiums, or determine if, when, or what kind of policy the consumer should have. I disagree- when the private sector fails to deliver essential services on such a large scale, it is legitimate for the government to intervene to promote the general welfare. Contracts depend on arms length negotiation and good faith and fair dealing between parties- that does not exist. Health insurance contracts are adhesion contracts, and if the GOP has their way, the policy holder will not have the right to sue at all. Do you honestly believe it is an equitable system to pit an average consumer against a legal department if they decide to breach? You think everyone can afford a lawyer and years of their life to fight a claim (all the while getting sicker if they can't afford to pay out of pocket)? People now do not have any real choice- they get what their employer offers-and even more egregious, become trapped in their jobs because of coverage issues. If they go solo, open their own business, unless they are in perfect health-they probably aren't going to be able to get a policy-and if they do it probably isn't worth the paper it is written on and costs a fortune. There is nothing wrong with the government shining a light on the stink from these companies- mandating clear language on coverage, giving people options through exchanges, allowing 100% portability, getting rid of arbitrary denials, policy maximums,and other provisions that kick people when they are already down. If the insurance industry wants to be in this business, then it is going to have to play by the rules set up to keep them honest and provide useful, dependable coverage. Obama fell short- a public option was critical- but at least these reforms are solid enough to prevent the worst abuses these scummy companies have been getting away with for so long. Your common misinterpretation of the so-called "General Welfare Clause" notwithstanding, I actually don't disagree with several of your points. I just happen to disagree this specific provision is helpful, or that any of ObamaCare is effective, or even well-intended.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 11, 2011 1:41:39 GMT -5
I disagree- when the private sector fails to deliver essential services on such a large scale, it is legitimate for the government to intervene to promote the general welfare. Contracts depend on arms length negotiation and good faith and fair dealing between parties- that does not exist. Health insurance contracts are adhesion contracts, and if the GOP has their way, the policy holder will not have the right to sue at all. Do you honestly believe it is an equitable system to pit an average consumer against a legal department if they decide to breach? You think everyone can afford a lawyer and years of their life to fight a claim (all the while getting sicker if they can't afford to pay out of pocket)? People now do not have any real choice- they get what their employer offers-and even more egregious, become trapped in their jobs because of coverage issues. If they go solo, open their own business, unless they are in perfect health-they probably aren't going to be able to get a policy-and if they do it probably isn't worth the paper it is written on and costs a fortune. There is nothing wrong with the government shining a light on the stink from these companies- mandating clear language on coverage, giving people options through exchanges, allowing 100% portability, getting rid of arbitrary denials, policy maximums,and other provisions that kick people when they are already down. If the insurance industry wants to be in this business, then it is going to have to play by the rules set up to keep them honest and provide useful, dependable coverage. Obama fell short- a public option was critical- but at least these reforms are solid enough to prevent the worst abuses these scummy companies have been getting away with for so long. Your common misinterpretation of the so-called "General Welfare Clause" notwithstanding, I actually don't disagree with several of your points. I just happen to disagree this specific provision is helpful, or that any of ObamaCare is effective, or even well-intended. Which means you are covered medically, but if you were not , one of the estimated 25/30 million who had no health coverage you would feel it is very well intended, well almost all would feel that way , as we found out here on our zone , there are some who don't want the coverage under any circumstance , even if it wouldn't' cost them anything, but that being a exception, most are very happy as well as those who are now covered even though they have come down with debilitating illnesses which would have disqualified them for insurance or caused cancellation as well as children being able to be covered under the parents coverage, and so many other new protections that are now covered so these people now can have care really as well as you and I can. It isn't a choice of being insurable, where one works, is it offered or not and , so many will know be covered who wearnt. it's not perfect, possible the one pay was the way to go but as everything in what we do here, it's politics that decide things not good sense. That you don't care about these people having coverage and protections, that is your problem and I do care, very much.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 11, 2011 9:55:03 GMT -5
>>at least my goal to provide every citizen with basic health care coverage for life-it only makes sense to have 1) the largest risk pool possible with 2) the lowest overhead<< You can't get the lowest overhead with government when they have no desire to cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse. And government pensions for government workers are draining tax dollars at an ever increasing pace. That is also overhead...but not included in the bullshit Medicare numbers, of course. >>Health insurance contracts are adhesion contracts, and if the GOP has their way, the policy holder will not have the right to sue at all. Do you honestly believe it is an equitable system to pit an average consumer against a legal department if they decide to breach? << And you believe people will have better legal options under a GOVERNMENT plan??? LOL! How thick can you get?? >>People now do not have any real choice- they get what their employer offers-.<< And that changes HOW under a single option plan??? You are arguing for choice AND a single insurance plan?? You gotta love the twists and turns of the liberal mind! >>There is nothing wrong with the government shining a light on the stink from these companies- mandating clear language on coverage, giving people options through exchanges, allowing 100% portability, getting rid of arbitrary denials, policy maximums,and other provisions that kick people when they are already down.<< The problem is we never get any shining light on government and their stink...or it is ignored or defended by the sheep. >>Obama fell short- a public option was critical- but at least these reforms are solid enough to prevent the worst abuses these scummy companies have been getting away with for so long. << I agree with limiting those abuses...unforunately those preventive measures are pieced in with a massive 2000+ page monstrosity of bullshit, waste, ideological job-killing measures, and no aid in actually KEEPING COSTS DOWN (which I thought might be a little of what "reform" might be about???)
|
|
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 Mar 11, 2011 10:19:12 GMT -5
I don't get my HI from my employer.
Even if I did, why would I feel trapped in a job? If I was in a job I hated and wanted to leave, I'd simply find another company that offered HI as a benefit. There is also the option of going with the spouse's work-place plan. Or, a private market plan.
With universal coverage you get no choice....you can take it or, well...take it. That is it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 11, 2011 10:45:06 GMT -5
We do have problems with healthcare, they're big problems, but they are few in number, and while the solutions are not easy-- they are remarkably simple. You simply have to let go ideology, gain a firm understanding of human nature.
Most of the major problems with healthcare in America stem from government intervention into the marketplace. In fact, if you look at any area of our economy where there is the highest degree of dissatisfaction, uncertainty, malinvestment, and out-of-control costs-- you will find government at the epicenter.
1. The first major problem with health insurance is that it by definition NOT insurance. It is in practice a wage subsidy. Health insurance isn't there to cover a catastrophic loss, it is there to subsidize virtually ALL health related expenses no matter how mundane and routine. Imagine car insurance where you could gas up, get an oil change, a tire rotation, a muffler, brake job, tune up, or any maintenance you can imagine etc. and for each instance you had a $5 to $30 "co-pay" and the service provider would simply send the bill off to a multibillion dollar third party entity.
This causes a lot of price distortion in the market- for several reasons-
The first and most obvious (to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics) is that when you send the bill off to a third party-- there's no incentive to economize on the part of the individual. The result is that for people who have insurance, they would consume much more than they would otherwise, and they wouldn't necessarily take good care of their car.
The second is that the service provider has every incentive to overbill. They couldn't get away with selling you $100, or $200 in extra services, or overcharging you $195 for an oil change-- but the time and trouble it takes for a multi-billion company to dispute a $150 over-charge isn't worth it. However, if you take an individual making $40K a year and standing there at the counter looking at a $195 oil change bill, there's going to be a little conversation happen there.
Further, the main concern of the insured would be if the service provider, or gas station was "in their network" and not how much it costs. If you doubt this, think back to your last selection of a doctor...did you ask how much they charge? If you did, you're unique. For most people, their only concern is that it's "covered". Imagine your doctor, like the Jiffy Lube, having to be price-competitive in a market where people had an incentive to economize because THEY had to pay for the mundane, routine services, and insurance was insurance and it ONLY covered the catastrophic-- accidents.
Further, car insurance does NOT cover drunk driving-- yet health insurance will pay the claim for injuries sustained as a result. Car insurance claims can be denied for failure to wear a seat belt-- but your health insurance will pay the claim. And in the event you can even get someone to sell you a policy, your insurance premiums are going to be reflective of your poor judgement and risk as a driver.
Car insurance doesn't cover you if you blow up your engine, or otherwise fail to maintain your car. But you can be a fat ass alcoholic smoker and most health insurance companies will not only cover that, but they won't even charge you more-- often because legally (thank you government) they can't.
ObamaCare does nothing to introduce market incentives back into healthcare. In fact, it eliminates one of the few government reforms that was working-- Health Savings Accounts-- a tax-free account that an individual can contribute to, and use to shop for their own health services.
2. Second major problem is that people that have insurance, by and large have it through an employer. They do not own the policy. They lose their job, they lose their insurance. You do not lose your care insurance when you change jobs. You don't lose your home owners insurance.
Not only this, but we have really developed a two-tiered system as a result-- the employed with the medical wage subsidy (insurance), and the unemployed, and self employed who are not insured, or have a hard time finding affordable insurance.
For the latter group-- the government is actually IN THE WAY. For the most part it's hard to band together to purchase insurance, insurance can't be purchased across state lines-- you're stuck with your state insurance options.
Remember those Republicans with no ideas? Well, Health Savings Accounts- above, is a functioning, highly successful idea that was implemented and destroyed by ObamaCare. These are two other ideas that Republicans have that would work very well to address the problems of the uninsured and hard to insure...I'll get to those in a minute, but first-- how did we get here?
Why do we have a two-tiered system? The answer is simple: government screw up. It traces back to wage and price controls after WWII. In postwar America, it was illegal to pay more than the government set wage. The private market, being the clever little buggers they are and always will be-- had to come up with a legal way to offer incentives to employees to work for their company instead of those other companies out there. One way was through a family medical practice-- often on site, staffed with a company doctor or doctors. This gave way later to subsidies / reimbursements, and later to what we know as the convoluted idea of "insurance" we have today. Thanks government.
ObamaCare literally does nothing to fix this problem except bark orders at insurance companies, and demand people purchase insurance (that famous "individual mandate".
Now, for those Republican ideas to cover that latter group of "difficult to insure" folks...
¡ Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
¡ Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
¡ Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
ObamaCare doesn't offer these solutions, it takes them away. It keeps government in the way.
You can say you "care", but if you really only care about government control, and you're really only concerned with "getting even" with evil insurance companies- then your actions speak louder than words. You don't really care about people. You don't care about the uninsured. You care ONLY about your centry old, ideological pipe dream of a health care utopia completely run and controlled by government, that takes from the rich- and gives to the poor no matter how unhealthy and risky their lifestyles are. This creates something called "moral hazard" and if you're familiar with the recent housing crisis you might know that government backing risky loans created a similar moral hazard-- so we know where that leads...Do we really want America's health to be in the same situation as America's housing and mortgage industry? We can see with relative clarity that over the horizon the ObamaCare "solution" ends in the bankruptcy of Insurance companies who will then have to be bailed out, taken over, and most likely destroyed and replaced with "single payer, one-size-fits-all, health care from Washington, D.C."
There's so much more I could say- but I think you should read through this a couple of times, do some more research, and get yourself up to speed on the REAL problems, the REAL causes of those problems, and the REAL solutions. Abandon your failed ideology and REALLY care by endeavoring to discover and support health care solutions that WORK.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 11, 2011 12:29:04 GMT -5
Petition to Defund ObamaCare
Whereas: ObamaCare imposes unconstitutional bureaucratic red tape upon small businessmen and women, forcing them to the brink of bankruptcy under the boot heel of government. Whereas: ObamaCare's unconstitutional individual mandate forces tens of millions of people to purchase health insurance, even if they don’t want it or need it. Whereas: ObamaCare chains insurance providers with endless federal regulations driving up the cost of health insurance and in turn the cost of healthcare itself. Whereas: ObamaCare empowers unelected bureaucrats to dictate which operations and procedures are covered and therefore who will live or die. Whereas: The American people reject these unconstitutional power grabs and everyday folks just like me all over the country are determined to continue to hold Congress accountable to a limited government agenda.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Mar 11, 2011 15:36:14 GMT -5
He's not required to comply, he can apply for a waiver just like everyone else. If his reasons justify the waiver he'll get one, just like everyone else.
Taxpayers are already handing out free health care and have been for years. Uninsured show up at the ER every day and run up thousands of dollars worth of bills. They can't afford to pay them so the hospital absorbs some of the cost and passes the rest onto the state. The state then passes that onto taxpayers. ER care IS THE most expensive care you can get so typically the cost of one visit could equal the cost of insuring a family for many months. Giving health insurance to people who can't afford it keeps them out of the ER. All in all a very good way to reform a system which has been experiencing spiraling costs for decades now. (and a system which the pubs themselves wanted as an alternative to Hilarycare back in the early 90s.)
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 11, 2011 16:28:19 GMT -5
We do have problems with health care, they're big problems, but they are few in number, and while the solutions are not easy-- they are remarkably simple. You simply have to let go ideology, gain a firm understanding of human nature. Most of the major problems with health care in America stem from government intervention into the marketplace. In fact, if you look at any area of our economy where there is the highest degree of dissatisfaction, uncertainty, malinvestment, and out-of-control costs-- you will find government at the epicenter. 1. The first major problem with health insurance is that it by definition NOT insurance. It is in practice a wage subsidy. Health insurance isn't there to cover a catastrophic loss, it is there to subsidize virtually ALL health related expenses no matter how mundane and routine. Imagine car insurance where you could gas up, get an oil change, a tire rotation, a muffler, brake job, tune up, or any maintenance you can imagine etc. and for each instance you had a $5 to $30 "co-pay" and the service provider would simply send the bill off to a multi billion dollar third party entity. This causes a lot of price distortion in the market- for several reasons- The first and most obvious (to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics) is that when you send the bill off to a third party-- there's no incentive to economize on the part of the individual. The result is that for people who have insurance, they would consume much more than they would otherwise, and they wouldn't necessarily take good care of their car. The second is that the service provider has every incentive to over bill. They couldn't get away with selling you $100, or $200 in extra services, or overcharging you $195 for an oil change-- but the time and trouble it takes for a multi-billion company to dispute a $150 over-charge isn't worth it. However, if you take an individual making $40K a year and standing there at the counter looking at a $195 oil change bill, there's going to be a little conversation happen there. Further, the main concern of the insured would be if the service provider, or gas station was "in their network" and not how much it costs. If you doubt this, think back to your last selection of a doctor...did you ask how much they charge? If you did, you're unique. For most people, their only concern is that it's "covered". Imagine your doctor, like the Jiffy Lube, having to be price-competitive in a market where people had an incentive to economize because THEY had to pay for the mundane, routine services, and insurance was insurance and it ONLY covered the catastrophic-- accidents. Further, car insurance does NOT cover drunk driving-- yet health insurance will pay the claim for injuries sustained as a result. Car insurance claims can be denied for failure to wear a seat belt-- but your health insurance will pay the claim. And in the event you can even get someone to sell you a policy, your insurance premiums are going to be reflective of your poor judgment and risk as a driver. Car insurance doesn't cover you if you blow up your engine, or otherwise fail to maintain your car. But you can be a fat ass alcoholic smoker and most health insurance companies will not only cover that, but they won't even charge you more-- often because legally (thank you government) they can't. ObamaCare does nothing to introduce market incentives back into health care. In fact, it eliminates one of the few government reforms that was working-- Health Savings Accounts-- a tax-free account that an individual can contribute to, and use to shop for their own health services. 2. Second major problem is that people that have insurance, by and large have it through an employer. They do not own the policy. They lose their job, they lose their insurance. You do not lose your care insurance when you change jobs. You don't lose your home owners insurance. Not only this, but we have really developed a two-tiered system as a result-- the employed with the medical wage subsidy (insurance), and the unemployed, and self employed who are not insured, or have a hard time finding affordable insurance. For the latter group-- the government is actually IN THE WAY. For the most part it's hard to band together to purchase insurance, insurance can't be purchased across state lines-- you're stuck with your state insurance options. Remember those Republicans with no ideas? Well, Health Savings Accounts- above, is a functioning, highly successful idea that was implemented and destroyed by ObamaCare. These are two other ideas that Republicans have that would work very well to address the problems of the uninsured and hard to insure...I'll get to those in a minute, but first-- how did we get here? Why do we have a two-tiered system? The answer is simple: government screw up. It traces back to wage and price controls after WWII. In postwar America, it was illegal to pay more than the government set wage. The private market, being the clever little buggers they are and always will be-- had to come up with a legal way to offer incentives to employees to work for their company instead of those other companies out there. One way was through a family medical practice-- often on site, staffed with a company doctor or doctors. This gave way later to subsidies / reimbursements, and later to what we know as the convoluted idea of "insurance" we have today. Thanks government. ObamaCare literally does nothing to fix this problem except bark orders at insurance companies, and demand people purchase insurance (that famous "individual mandate". Now, for those Republican ideas to cover that latter group of "difficult to insure" folks... ¡ Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. ¡ Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do. ¡ Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs. ObamaCare doesn't offer these solutions, it takes them away. It keeps government in the way. You can say you "care", but if you really only care about government control, and you're really only concerned with "getting even" with evil insurance companies- then your actions speak louder than words. You don't really care about people. You don't care about the uninsured. You care ONLY about your centry old, ideological pipe dream of a health care utopia completely run and controlled by government, that takes from the rich- and gives to the poor no matter how unhealthy and risky their lifestyles are. This creates something called "moral hazard" and if you're familiar with the recent housing crisis you might know that government backing risky loans created a similar moral hazard-- so we know where that leads...Do we really want America's health to be in the same situation as America's housing and mortgage industry? We can see with relative clarity that over the horizon the ObamaCare "solution" ends in the bankruptcy of Insurance companies who will then have to be bailed out, taken over, and most likely destroyed and replaced with "single payer, one-size-fits-all, health care from Washington, D.C." There's so much more I could say- but I think you should read through this a couple of times, do some more research, and get yourself up to speed on the REAL problems, the REAL causes of those problems, and the REAL solutions. Abandon your failed ideology and REALLY care by endeavoring to discover and support health care solutions that WORK. "The first and most obvious (to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics) is that when you send the bill off to a third party-- there's no incentive to economize on the part of the individual. " Your correct. Example: very recently, was at Doc's for normal check up, showed him a swelling in neck, gland possible and while not painful but something. He didn't know of course but suggested a scan, and I , not because of cost, wouln't cost me out of pocker, have medicare and AARP supplement, but not wanting to go through a scan, inconvenience, asked, possible a infection , glan, medication first, antibiotic, whatever , a pill first. He agreed, took , saw him, immediate improvement , one more visit, expecting 100% gone, but your correct, I didn't opt out because of cost, just bother, inconvenience , if I didn't endanger myself , a week delay on the scan and he felt a week , no problem. "The first and most obvious (to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics) is that when you send the bill off to a third party-- there's no incentive to economize on the part of the individual" Think the government has done that, they have set the rates for procedures , not what the Doctors charge, if taking Medicare patients they live with the $ paid for procedures. Actually found most Doctor offices subscribe to out fits who suggest the fees to be charged for what ever, Doctors and their accountants don't sit down and decide what a shot, office visit is going to be charged in almost all cases. My doctors haven't a clue what is charged, thats the office responsibilities. "ObamaCare does nothing to introduce market incentives back into health care" Part of the reasoning behind the promotion of universal health care for all, besides bringing in most of the 30 million who were out in the cold was the continuous increase of medical costs, the experts called , all forget how long and entailed those hearings were, was that costs ere going to over whelm us, companies were/would , no longer able to offer coverage, shrink their contributions toward, which is happening as I type. Universal coverage by economics of scale , saving on not having uninsured, 30 million, lots of people, using ER as their first line of health care , so expensive, and a savings and a slow down in expenses, increases, never said it would go down, premiums of those now covered who weren't covered, many are gainfully enployed but just unable to get affordable Insurance as private contractors , either for past conditions or as said, as a individual not part of a group, just to expensive. Nit all uninsured are on the dole, unemployed , meaking little, many cery si=uccssful, but individual health insurence still to expensive. I think they have backed off on the slowing down of costs, definitely any savings of but with out it, the costs will most likely explode out the zing zang and even more companies drop all to gether.
|
|