![]() |
Health Insurance . . . Revisted |
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Author | ||||||
Mack
Moderator Group
Has no impulse! control Joined: 13 January 2004 Location: 2nd Circle Status: Offline Points: 9906 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Health Insurance . . . RevistedPosted: 11 December 2012 at 10:42am |
|||||
|
Here's one where FE gets to say I told you so.
Of course, I'm going to beat him to it by saying it first so . . . . . . consider it said. Link to below article:
Let me reiterate what I said during the health care discussions we had on here approximately 3-4 years ago; You don't do more stuff, for more people, and have it cost less. That's just not the way the real world works . . . it is an equation that only works out in the imaginary world of hope and change math. But at least now the bill has been passed so we can see what is in it . . . and what the actual real-world results are. Yes, I noted that the article describes this as a "stabilization" fee that will decrease and go away over 3 years. However, the math isn't going to change; you still can't do more, for more people, and have it cost less. So while this may temporarily "stabilize" the health care situation, eventually deficit spending will mean it will need to be stabilized again. I fully expect to be back here in 3 years pointing out how this fee hasn't gone away. I would also like to point out that the need for this fee tends to discredit a lot of what was said by the proponents for changing the health care system about how it would be more efficient and less expensive. |
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
stratoaxe
Platinum Member
And my axe... Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:50am |
|||||
|
I've had a couple of business executives tell me they were pretty nervous about the owner side cost of this plan.
|
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
tallen702
Moderator Group
Hipster before Hipster was cool... Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: Under Your Bed Status: Offline Points: 11857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:52am |
|||||
So, can you explain to me how the GOP's current arguments on the budget and debt ceiling make sense to the same people who will use what you just said against the healthcare bill? |
||||||
|
<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: 9906 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:56am |
|||||
Assuming that I am thinking about the same specific arguments you are, and I think I am, if they aren't including cuts in spending, they fall into the same incapable of understanding the correlation between math and the real-world category as many of the liberals who thought this was going to do more and cost less. (They're just at the other end of the category so they don't mix with each other.) Also, since I forgot to put it in the original article, I would like to note that I wasn't surprised at all about unexpected/hidden costs coming out. |
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
tallen702
Moderator Group
Hipster before Hipster was cool... Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: Under Your Bed Status: Offline Points: 11857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:57am |
|||||
The reality of the whole situation is this. Does it cost more money? Yes. Does it also ensure that everyone is given equal protection under the law which they were formerly denied due to "pre-existing conditions"? You bet your ass it does. If it weren't for the lack of ethics and the rise of unbridled corporate and shareholder greed thanks to a generation that did jack all to earn what they've got (they rode in on the coat tails of their working parents and sent the poor off to fight their wars for them) then we wouldn't be facing a government mandate to treat everyone equally. We live in a economic system that is broken right now. It's broken because those in charge have done nothing to innovate and make more money but are cannibalizing their own workers' compensation instead to generate more profits for absentee shareholders who are invested only in money, not in faith or morals. |
||||||
|
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Moderator Group
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4626 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 12:54pm |
|||||
|
I have not heard one argument that makes sense to me how you should be able to force insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions.
They are private companies who take bet against you getting sick/dying. The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry. If you have a problem with the affordability of health care, let's look at what forces malpractice insurance and med school rates to rise, while good drugs are forced into recall because of statistical outliers. EDIT: Not aimed at you Tallen, just venting about the idea of forced coverage in general. Edited by usafpilot07 - 11 December 2012 at 12:55pm |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
stratoaxe
Platinum Member
And my axe... Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 12:57pm |
|||||
The trouble is that the word "more" doesn't adequately give us a picture of how this will impact business. More could be anything from 1 dollar to 1 billion dolars. I think I've posted this before, but I spoke to the head of a major accounting firm who said that the costs that she would individually incur would mean her individual rates as an owner would move from $2,500 a month to around $6,000 a month. Also-another problem that's being brought up is that there's little cost control in this bill. Just so we're all on the same page, insurance is a gamble correct? It's a game of odds where the company bets against your health in order to make a profit. The reason pre-existing conditions are generally frowned upon with insurance companies is that there is no gamble, only a direct cost. When you apply for insurance and you have a pre-existing condition, you're essentially saying "Hey insurance company, pay for my bills." So the insurance company only makes money if they charge on top of a guaranteed expense, hence the raised rates. With Obamacare insurance companies will simply pass that cost on to their other customers via raised premiums. So I'm all for a health insurance solution-but that solution, in my opinion, does not lie in the free market. Morals and values are quite expensive and the market is never going to bear the brunt of them-if you're in charge of a business that has the choice of either operating under cost or finding a new market with the millions you already have, guess what? Bye bye business. If the people want socialized medicine they need a federal policy that comes out of the tax money and nothing more. But this bill simply moves money around and, in the end, I think you're going to see the insurance companies make a killing at the hands of business owners and doctors.
Wholeheartedly disagree with you there.
That's not broken, that's the point of the matter. The market is solely concerned with money and nothing else. Criticizing executives and shareholders for not taking a moral interest in the welfare of society is like spanking your dog for not putting out a housefire. The government exists to watch over the welfare of the people. If there are human rights failures it's wholly the fault of the government for not creating and enforcing human rights laws on businesses and the fault of the people for supporting the company.
This current trend of attacking corporations for being greedy is great for politicians because it allows them to sit back and point the finger at the market for doing what it was designed to do whilst they profit off of it. Businesses seek profits and the government makes sure they do so in the best interest of the worker. *edit* Damn you USAF, you beat me to the point Edited by stratoaxe - 11 December 2012 at 12:58pm |
||||||
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:12pm |
|||||
Unless you force everyone to buy a plan, then you're getting tons of money paid into your system from people who are not and probably won't get sick. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:14pm |
|||||
|
I'd like to point out that everything strato has said so far is something I agree with.
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Moderator Group
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4626 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:29pm |
|||||
If someone isn't likely to get sick, and takes care of themselves, why would they want to spend extra money on expanded insurance? |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:34pm |
|||||
According to current law, to avoid extra fees associated with not having health insurance. Pragmatically, in case of emergencies or unpredicted illness.
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Moderator Group
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4626 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:41pm |
|||||
That's justifying the law with the law. My point is, this is simply trying to bandaid a larger problem by punishing those healthy enough or wealthy enough to be forced into paying more than they need to. |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:52pm |
|||||
That's how things work.
I don't -like- the current system, mostly because it's just paying a bunch of money back to private insurance firms to act as middle-men. But, you asked how it was possible to pay for accepting all people regardless of PEC, and that's how. You make everyone pay for something. To a larger point, it's depressing that your opinion there is so popular with so many ignorant people. It really makes getting a decent universal healthcare system in the U.S. off the ground.
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
*Stealth*
Platinum Member
Watermarked Joined: 31 October 2002 Location: Ethiopia Status: Offline Points: 10717 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:00pm |
|||||
Blunt much Whale?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:07pm |
|||||
|
I still shake my head and sigh sadly at how you guys do it. Just go direct on this like most of the rest of the developed world and have most (and, critically, preventative) healthcare paid for directly from tax revenues, with *everyone* having equal access.
Nothing precludes a blended system where everyone gets a certain degree of healthcare, and where additional insurance coverage can offer higher quality in some things, coverage of medications, etc etc. I'd personally be in favour of a system where a public system and private system coexist, with regulation in place to ensure the public system was adequately staffed. But this joke of a system America has *still* allows more people to live without basic health coverage than there are people in my whole country. In a first world nation that's unconscionable. |
||||||
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Moderator Group
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4626 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:41pm |
|||||
With costs to care for that population equally massive. How about instead of providing people smart phones with unlimited packages that cost 1/3rd what mine does, or EBT cards that are exchanged for 50 cents on the dollar for drug and booze money, cable television for convicts or in free housing; we take that money and put it into covering some of those costs of expanding healthcare and crack down on bull**edited** malpractice suits. While we're at it, spend some of that money on better lunches for kids, and educating poorer people that frozen chicken and veggies are just as cheap as hot pockets and Doritos. Hey, I've got herpes and cirrhosis of the liver, but clearly I take great care of myself. Everyone should have to chip in extra money each year to force insurance companies or government healthcare to take care of me. Why should I take care of myself when others will take care of me? /disjointed rant |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:45pm |
|||||
|
Let me prefice this by saying that I highly support a universal system, and dislike what we have now, both in current and soon-to-be states.
This will be extraordinarily difficult. More difficult that anybody on the Internet wants to address. The U.S. is a big country with a lot of people and a lot of institutions. We have an economy on the scale of the entirety of Europe. We have a medical infrastructure bigger than most all other places on Earth. We have a fundamental economic structure unlike most on Earth. We have a bigger, more diverse population of working poor than most other places. A lot has to change, culturally and economically, for us to get to a universal system. It's why it's silly for people to sit back and point to France and Canada and go "Well they're doing it right, just do like them," as those countries have frankly insignificant population numbers compared to the scale of the U.S. I have no doubt the U.S. could, and eventually will, form a universal system. But it's not going to look like the Canadian or French or British system.
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:55pm |
|||||
"I don't know how social programs work."
So we're taking all the money, to be clear here, from programs that allow the working poor to get discounted phone connections, food assistance programs, and prison TV, and that's going to pay for the health costs of the nations impoverished?
Statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of healthcare costs.
I concur.
"I don't know how society works."
No argument there.
Edited by agentwhale007 - 11 December 2012 at 9:56pm |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
usafpilot07
Moderator Group
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth Joined: 31 August 2004 Location: Tokelau Status: Offline Points: 4626 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:08pm |
|||||
|
I understand how social programs are abused. At the beginning of the month, I could go and get 750 dollars worth of EBT funds for $300 and it wouldn't take me more than a couple hours. Ive met people who've done this and ate like kings because of it. I don't condone it, but until the system is fixed, it will still happen.
We disagree on what a person is entitled to. Housing/Air-conditioning/land-line/food? Absolutely. Cell-phones with unlimited data, cable, and easily-abused sources of drug money? Nope. You want a food program? Redesign it so that set types of food(like with WIC) can be chosen and picked up. I'm not saying this would fund the entire expansion of medical coverage(which we already obviously disagree on), just that if it's going to be forced down our throats, why not start by reforming broken systems that only force more burdens onto a system that is already doomed to be a money pit, societal value or not. |
||||||
|
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
||||||
![]() |
||||||
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2012 at 11:21pm |
|||||
|
Oh, I realize it couldn't simply be imposed in one fell swoop Whale. There's the whole awkward question of that massive insurance industry for one.
But it's just as clear that the current structure of your healthcare system is ethically indefensible for a developed nation. Something's gotta give.
|
||||||
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
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 |