![]() |
Health Insurance . . . Revisted |
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| Author | ||||||
stratoaxe
Platinum Member
And my axe... Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6702 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 11:47pm |
|||||
|
A couple of notes here.
FIrst of all, I can't help but think that there's some serious exaggeration going on in this thread regarding the state of America's health care system. Despite what outsiders might think, people are not dying in the streets. And before somebody goes and searches the interwebz for that one time that old dude totally died in the lobby while waiting to be triaged, that's both illegal and an exception to the rule.
That's the point-it is changing. EMTALA, HIPPA, Medicaid programs, so on and so forth have made efforts to equalize the industry and allow for equal care and still keep the private industry intact. This isn't as simply as, "OMG YALLS SYSTEM SUCKS CHANGE IT NOW." We're all aware that system isn't working properly, but, as Whale pointed out, there are massive pros and cons to be considered in hundreds of fields. Solving health care is like being presented with a terriblly complex mathematical problem and being told to solve it in an hour. That's how we arrived at Obamacare. I really do believe that it was a shameless act of promotion in order to say that Obama was THE president who got it passed. Otherwise, from everything I understand of it, it's a poorly thought out overpriced mess that will collapse far faster than Medicare. People like to pretend that impacting the market is an easy decision. But it's not. Cutting corners on the market isn't a simple redistribution of wealth, it's a delicate economic ecosystem that, given the right circumstances, could collapse on itself in an economic butterfly effect. This is why I think that it's an all or nothing affair. We can keep tweaking the system and experimenting, but it's best (in my humble, poorly educated opinion) to establish either government treatmen facilities for those receiving government aid or else establish a universal plan that allows commercial policies to exist for extended levels of care. Both of those have impacts. The trouble right now is that the ER's are flooded with preventative patients that either don't want to or are unable to get an appointment with a preventative doc and the ER's are almost helpless to prevent abuse of the system. This is because in a free market the producer will gravitate to the least costly most profitable source of revenue and we tend to forget that doctors are simply producers of a service in a market. Medicaid and other state / federal programs are TERRIBLE at paying medical bills. They require separate paperwork, are extremely picky, and drag out the payment process so doctor's refuse to see the patients. So this means you have private market doctors that are willing to see Medicaid patients for whatever reason and they become congested so those patients fly in to the local ER where now the wait times are anywhere from 3-20 hours just to get seen from having to separate fast track patients from actual emergencies. This is also partly why the cost of ER visits along with the cost of Medicaid is skyrocketing. But Obamacare is barely a stab at the problem-state Medicaid programs get MORE funding and commercial insurance gets MORE expensive. As I said earlier, I have yet to see a practical solution within this plan. You have to separate ideals from the market. You have to understand both to approach a solution involving both. You balance out the profit seeking behavior of the market with the profitless cost of humans rights endeaovors. It's not as simple as "Greedy corporation has plenty of money to fund my ventures" because that's counter to the very existence of our system. Paying for socialized health care is impossible if the economy isn't thriving enough to fund it. There has to be money (i.e. the no free lunch law of economics). So you have to temper your dreams with reality, and right now nobody has been able to produce a plan that does just that.
Simple-because you can do both. We tend to get caught up on eliminating negative externalities and free riders to the point that we forget that they're always going to be there. This is entry level ecnomics. One of the great trick questions I hear repeated in my economic classes is "How much pollution should we tolerate?" Of course every student yells "ZERO" and then the professor says "Nope. Pollution is a negative byproduct of production, therefore we seek to balance out pollution until cost = benefit." Free riders are a cost of a public good. We can't eliminate welfare abusers and we have to be careful that our efforts to do so do not outweight the cost of simply letting them exist, otherwise we've engaged an a purely ideological endeavor that violates the conservative policy we were seeking to enforce. |
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 7:49am |
|||||
|
The goal is single payer, so you overwhelm business with massive costs until they buckle and drop health care, then progressive liberals come along and offer single payer government plans. Then you get rationing, where the government decides WHO should be treated. Just like we see in the other "government run" systems around the world.
Here is an article on the subject from MSNBC, clearly not a "right wing" source. They didn't cover this BEFORE the election... why?... http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/11/15848640-health-insurance-us-paying-more-for-less-report-finds?lite Health insurance: US paying more for less, report findsBy Maggie Fox, NBC News Health insurance premiums have shot up more than 60 percent in the last eight years, and if they keep up at this pace the average family of four will be paying $25,000 a year just for health insurance, according to a report released Wednesday. At the same time, deductibles are also going up for employer-sponsored plans, so workers are paying more and more for less and less, the non-profit Commonwealth Fund said. “Workers are paying more for less financial protection when they get sick,” said Commonwealth Fund senior vice president Cathy Schoen, who led the team writing the report. Currently, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, an average worker with employer-sponsored health insurance pays between about $15,000 to $16,000 a year for that coverage. Workers at bigger firmsThe Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that conducts health policy reform research, did a state-by state look at health insurance premiums and deductibles and used Census Bureau data on earnings for the report, which covers 2003 to 2011. “Premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across states -- rising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families,” the report says. “At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits. If trends continue at their historical rate, the average premium for family coverage will reach nearly $25,000 by 2020.” One big reason for the rising premiums? Rising expenses. “Broad evidence of poorly coordinated care, duplicative services, and administrative waste, as well as rising prices charged to those privately insured, signal that greater efforts are needed to slow cost growth in both private and public insurance markets,” the report finds. This isn’t controversial. Earlier this year the independent Institute of Medicine made a formal pronouncement on what think-tanks and academic institutions had been saying for years. It said the U.S. health care system wasted $750 billion in 2009, about 30 percent of all health spending, on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. pay more. Coverage is about $5,600 a year for a single person. “The U.S. health insurance system remains highly fragmented, marked by elevated spending on administration and an inability or unwillingness to combat high health care costs in private insurance markets. Our system includes Medicare coverage for those 65 and older and some disabled individuals, state-operated Medicaid programs, and an array of competing private insurance plans,” the report adds. The Commonwealth Fund has been a big fan of the Affordiable Care Act, the 2010 health reform law known widely by supporters and opponents alike as Obamacare. And the report says the legislation will do a lot to lower costs, but not enough. “Health insurance is expensive and has become less affordable, no matter where one lives. Insurance premiums rose sharply in all states during these eight years and, because wages failed to keep pace, increased as a share of median household income,” the report says. “The net result is that it is more difficult for many insured workers and their families to save for educatAnd, the group says, the economy has made things worse. “With the recent recession, millions of workers lost their jobs or were otherwise unable to afford coverage and, as a result, joined the ranks of the uninsured. From 2008 to 2010, the percentage of people with employment-based insurance fell from 58.9 percent to 55.3 percent,” the report says. “An estimated 9 million adults ages 19 to 64 lost a job with health benefits and became uninsured during this period.” Michael Ramlet, a health economist at the right-leaning American Action Forum, says one reason health insurance costs actually slowed during the recession is that people stopped getting anything but the most essential health services. “That is starting to change as you have this slow recovery,” Ramlet said in a telephone interview. He thinks expenses will go up even more as the Affordable Care Act’s requirements kick in. These include the so-called essential health benefits -- the minimum requirements for the health insurance plans that people will buy on the open market starting in 2014. These aren’t the same plans as those offered by employers, but Ramlet thinks the federal requirements will make these new retail plans pricey. “They are very rich,” he said. “Economists would warn you there there is no free lunch and more things cost more money.” Ramlet believes this could affect employer-sponsored insurance. Already some federal requirements such as provision of free health screenings are making employers think twice about offering insurance, he said. “Honestly I don’t think employers are going to stay in the insurance game for very long,” Ramlet said. Just this week, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans said more than 85 percent of employers surveyed say they plan to keep offering health insurance to workers. But Ramlet believes those numbers will fall as health insurance becomes more and more expensive. He also predicts more people will gamble and not buy health insurance at all -- although the health reform law is designed to encourage people to buy it. That could be a risky option when an unanticipated medical emergency can quickly rack up hundreds or even of thousands of dollars in billions or retirement -- or simply to meet day-to-day living expenses.” Edited by FreeEnterprise - 12 December 2012 at 7:50am |
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 9:21am |
|||||
Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world?
|
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 10:44am |
|||||
|
Well, I used to have a 1,000,000 maximum insurance payout, before Obamacare, it is now 500,000 per year.
I also USED to have a $20 copay. Now I have no copay and only get covered when I reach $3,000 in costs, before that I pay 100% until then. So I pay MORE and get way less. And my doctor isn't under our new plan, so I lost my doctor... Oh, and it used to be $3,000 paid out and everyone in your family was covered, now it is$3,000 PER person in your family. So you could pay $12,000 for a family of 4 and never even touch your insurance "benefits". Thanks Obama! All while I pay 120% more per month in premiums than I did before Obamacare. Woot! good job liberals. Take from one group and give to another!
|
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 10:49am |
|||||
|
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
evillepaintball
Platinum Member
Using other peoples accounts isnt nice Joined: 08 March 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4750 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 2:43pm |
|||||
|
As I have said before, when the uninsured get injured, say in a car wreck, and are in danger of losing their life, hospitals do not have the option to refuse them treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it. When they can't pay back their medical expenses, the hospital passes that cost on to the rest of their patients. You are already paying for their health care, it is just in the form of higher healthcare costs to you.
|
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
tallen702
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: Under Your Bed Status: Offline Points: 10496 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 December 2012 at 4:04pm |
|||||
Yep, And what's more, failure to pay your hospital bill of 1200.00 isn't considered anything nearly as bad as failing to pay off a 1000.00 student credit card bill when it comes to the reporting agencies and your FICO score. So there's even less incentive to pay. |
||||||
|
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
Mack
Moderator Group
Has no impulse! control Joined: 13 January 2004 Location: 2nd Circle Status: Offline Points: 9696 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 12:51pm |
|||||
|
This wasn't really what I envisioned when I started this topic. I
really just wanted a chance to point out (again) the fallacies of the
math involved with this whole program. Something I've done before, but
never tire of doing since so many people, both on here and in
face-to-face conversations spent so much time telling me I was wrong
about the can't do more for more people and have it cost less thing.
Some observations. (Based both on threads on this forum and other conversations):
Aw heck, let's be more blunt, after all, we've got a bunch of smart, reasonable people here . . . and FE.
My thoughts on health care so those who wish to attack me on this are actually attacking what I think. Everyone deserves a basic level of health care. I am not opposed to paying a bit extra in taxes so that those who truly can't afford medical care can get it. However, note that I said a basic level. I'm not a medical professional so I won't pretend to know where to exactly draw the line but an example would be that plastic surgery to correct a breathing or eating difficulty would be okay but the same procedures to improve self esteem would be bull. Furthermore, there needs to be a copay for everyone involved. One of the things I noted regarding the military medical system is how people would be seen for free on base for stuff they would just put up with if the base clinic was full and they were referred downtown where there was a $10.00 copay. People abuse free stuff -- it's a fact. If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them. Edited by Mack - 14 December 2012 at 9:45am |
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:08pm |
|||||
When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out.
That is not the word I selected.
So, to be clear, your plan is a full-force ideological system based not on what is the most economically sound? I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all. |
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:45pm |
|||||
|
The arrogance of the left is astounding.
Especially when the facts coming in point to Obamacare forcing all of us to pay a HUGE amount to our "new expanded" Obamacare. As a dude, I find it comforting to know that my birth control is now "free" thanks to Obama. Truth is, your rates are going to skyrocket, exactly as I said they would. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BGOVHEALT-BIZNEWS-BNALL-BNCOPY/2012/12/13/id/467628 "Health insurance premiums may as much as double for some small businesses and individual buyers in the U.S. when the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions start in 2014, Aetna Inc.’s chief executive officer said. While subsidies in the law will shield some people, other consumers who make too much for assistance are in for “premium rate shock,” Mark Bertolini, who runs the third-biggest U.S. health-insurance company, told analysts today at a conference in New York. The prospect has spurred discussion of having Congress delay or phase in parts of the law, he said. “We’ve shared it all with the people in Washington and I think it’s a big concern,” the CEO said. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as as 100 percent.”" But, I'm sure that doctors won't mind getting paid less from Obama for their services? What with spending $150,000 just to get a degree, and THEN open a practice... Why should they expect to make a profit? Good luck finding a doctor in 10 years... http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/04/titanic-warnings-for-healthcare/ And just in case you missed it the first time, rates WILL skyrocket under Obamacare, as conservatives promised you they would. Course liberals are just now figuring this out. Must be their superior brain power, it just takes a while to see the obvious... http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/29/1254431/double-digit-rate-hike/?mobile=nc |
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:49pm |
|||||
|
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:02pm |
|||||
|
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Platinum Member
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4310 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:03pm |
|||||
Economically sound for who? |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:06pm |
|||||
|
The problem is, you buy insurance for the purpose of protecting yourself in case of an emergency.
Just like you insure your home, in case of a flood. You wouldn't buy a house in a flood plane and NOT insure it for floods... Oh wait, some people do... Because they expect others to take care of them, as a rational person would realize that living in a flood plane is too big of a risk. Obamacare forces EVERYONE to have "the same" insurance. So the guy living on the top of the tallest mountain in the world now has to have "flood" insurance... If his house floods, the world is gone, and yet, that is the logic of a one size fits all Obamacare plan. It ends up with guys having birth control coverage. And you have so many things covered that you DON'T need, that the rates necessarily skyrocket, as insuring things is based on risk, the more coverage the more risk. Hence higher cost. |
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:11pm |
|||||
The U.S. Our current system is this big ol' expensive mega-bloat, overly expensive both up-front, because of a lack of people properly covered who have to rely on expensive emergency systems, and in the long term, with a lack of people covered for preventative health. A healthier society is a more prosperous and productive and economically stable society. Our bloat makes everything expensive. And it seems silly to keep going with it because, well, "poor people should just work harder." Edited by agentwhale007 - 13 December 2012 at 2:14pm |
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:13pm |
|||||
And this mentality is what's generally wrong with how we approach health in this country.
Nope. And feel free to answer this question on "rationing" at any point:
|
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:39pm |
|||||
This is a really big point that I wish got clarified more when people debate healthcare systems and swear that the U.S. needs a universal system built like Canada's or the NHS right this moment -- we've had insurance-based healthcare for so long that it's a part of the system too big to just shut down. It'll take a transition, and I think an insurance-type-system will probably be the best way to go about it in the U.S., but it's going to be tricky.
I concur. The problem, as has been so eloquently demonstrated in this thread, is that people have the two-fold mindset of 1) The poor don't deserve anything more than basic healthcare, and 2) Health insurance, which is affordable health care, is really only for emergencies. It's that mindset that makes progressing a universal system difficult. People don't see the long-term financial or ethical dilemmas with either. Addressing point one, it ignores the financial burden people who cannot afford care put on the system when they require advanced procedures and care. It makes more financial sense to pool-in, but people won't because that would mean a poor person got something they didn't "deserve." Addressing point two, the issue is that we largely ignore preventative care in this country. We see insurance as this thing we use when we break a bone as not to go broke, not something we should be setting up so that we can have regular blood screenings, regular prostate/breast exams, regular bone density tests, etc., to catch things before they get -really- expensive. How the U.S. looks at health is screwed up, and that's intertwined with how we view paying for health.
|
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
evillepaintball
Platinum Member
Using other peoples accounts isnt nice Joined: 08 March 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4750 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:40pm |
|||||
|
No, Mack, Obamacare is not the same thing as buying specific coverage for your home. That is one of the worst analogies I have seen on this board to date.
|
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Platinum Member
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4310 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:42pm |
|||||
[/QUOTE] Because not everyone wants to be forced to pay and take care of people too lazy to do it for themselves? I eat right, exercise daily, and don't booze/smoke my life away. And yet, my health insurance costs are going up in January while the government expands overage or people who'd rather eat fried chicken and wash it down with beer that they bought with their EBT cards. Programs like this remove responsibility fom the individual and place it on the masses who do work. It's not fair o just chalk it up as a "cost of society" and call opponents of it ignorant because they disagree with you. |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:51pm |
|||||
That's fine. Ethical and moral abhorrentness of this aside, that's fine. But you're costing yourself a considerable amount of money with this mentality. People who take perfect care of themselves, who don't "eat fried chicken and drink beer," as you so blew through the dog-whistle, still get sick. They still get issues with genetic diabetes. They still get high blood pressure. They still get internal cysts and ulcers. They still break their ankle biking to work. They still get cancer. They still get meningitis. They still get neurological diseases. They still get clinically depressed. Etc. And by saying "Well, I take care of my self, you should to," you're forcing those people with those conditions to use expensive emergency care systems -- or worse, prisons -- to be helped. It costs more to diffuse out those emergency systems than it would be to pay for those individuals to get help from the get-go, at least in preventative situations. So you're good with paying more money and having a sicker society simply to enforce an ideology that the poor are lesser people?
I'm going to guess you're not around a lot of working poor in your everyday life.
I'm a fan of pragmatic solutions to problems. I tend to think people who favor idealism, especially expensive idealism, over said pragmatic solutions are ignorant to their surroundings.
Edited by agentwhale007 - 13 December 2012 at 2:53pm |
||||||
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |