You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 01:39:32 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Good news or bad? You decide.  (Read 4482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2011, 09:42:22 AM »
This is because our powerful free market has attracted the brightest doctors in the world,  and there is great incentive to research and invent the very best techniques money can buy.  Whatever their overhead,  insurance companies compete for your business - naturally regulating the cost and the services offered.  Once they've gone out of business,  it will be nigh impossible to restart the industry,  and the costs and benefits of medicine will be in the hands of incompetent bureaucrats.

I cannot believe this article in Forbes has the writer cackling with glee as the unlikelyhood of their survival looms near.  Already, he states,  they are seeking other investments.  This is bad news for the healthcare sector,  as Medicare's wasteful spending,  easy fraud,  and outright denial of service demonstrates.

The bomb in Obamacare is the stipulation that anyone who does not purchase $2100 in annual health insurance goes to jail.  Over my dead body.


funny.. so you're saying that my 400/year Tricare Prime policy is going to get me sent to Jail? And my old coworkers still in the service who pay NOTHING for their healthcare are going to join me?

No offense but don't drink the kool-aid dude. Not everything the rivals of Obamacare say is true. I got leery of 'factual reporting' when the 'death panels' were being trotted out.

Take news from EITHER side of the line with more than a dash of salt.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2011, 10:12:53 AM »


funny.. so you're saying that my 400/year Tricare Prime policy is going to get me sent to Jail? And my old coworkers still in the service who pay NOTHING for their healthcare are going to join me?

No offense but don't drink the kool-aid dude. Not everything the rivals of Obamacare say is true. I got leery of 'factual reporting' when the 'death panels' were being trotted out.

Take news from EITHER side of the line with more than a dash of salt.

This is why I tend to stay out of debates like this, because I don't like to commit myself to an issue without knowing the facts, and I simply can't find any source I consider reliable for the 'facts'. Social medicine advocates champion places like Australia, Britain, and Canada as evidence that socialized health care works and is great. Social medicine detractors hold up the exact same countries as examples of why it's a horrible idea. Who do I trust? I don't know, and can't be certain.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2011, 10:15:45 AM »
This is why I tend to stay out of debates like this, because I don't like to commit myself to an issue without knowing the facts, and I simply can't find any source I consider reliable for the 'facts'. Social medicine advocates champion places like Australia, Britain, and Canada as evidence that socialized health care works and is great. Social medicine detractors hold up the exact same countries as examples of why it's a horrible idea. Who do I trust? I don't know, and can't be certain.

I get that.. I remember what problems the introduction of HMOs into the mix in the 90s was like. My buddy's mom suddenly got excluded from his new policy for 'pre-existing' conditions.  I confess I find it easier to trouble shoot a high gain high output aircraft radar system than follow the rules and regs of getting my own 'pre-existing' condition taken care of.

Offline Crazy

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2011, 09:11:38 PM »
I'm going to have to take exception to this.

Actually, no.  You don't.  You have the highest paid healthcare professionals, but most other 1st and 2nd world countries actually have better service and/or equivalently trained doctors and nurses.  Anyone who tells you that America has the best, is trying to sell you insurance so you won't see the truth.

You'll forgive my American bias, but when I talk to people who have travelled to the U.S. to receive healthcare they invariably complain about waiting periods in their home country, usually six to eight months.  They are happy to have the opportunity to spend whatever it costs for lifesaving procedures, particularly when they were unlikely to survive the waiting period.  I fear that socialized medicine in America will leave them and us with nowhere left to run.

No. That has been both shot down and upheld by several courts. It's going to the Supreme Court now and will be examined in this coming year to see if it is constitutional for the US government to make it's citizens  pay, one way or another, for health care. Either you  buy it yourself, or you will be fined for not having it.  That, I believe, is the issue the SC is going to look at.

This is the crux of the issue at hand.  When you buy insurance,  you gamble that you will need expensive procedures that outway the costs of your premiums.  When companies sell you insurance,  they gamble that they will be able to recuperate the expenses through the power of investment.  Allowing people to purchase insurance with preexisting conditions is like opening a casino where everyone wins,  thus the need for an individual mandate.



funny.. so you're saying that my 400/year Tricare Prime policy is going to get me sent to Jail? And my old coworkers still in the service who pay NOTHING for their healthcare are going to join me?

No offense but don't drink the kool-aid dude. Not everything the rivals of Obamacare say is true. I got leery of 'factual reporting' when the 'death panels' were being trotted out.

Take news from EITHER side of the line with more than a dash of salt.

No, you and your armed forces colleagues will continue to enjoy your benefits, as will public sector employees and elected officials.  The private sector will continue to shoulder the burden of your government benefits.  This will dramatically reduce the costs associated with hiring a public sector employee,  increasing the size and scope of government.

No offense taken,  but how am I being likened to an adherent of a suicide pact?  The idea of death panels being 'trotted out' is a very rational fear that a government bureaucrat will decide which procedures will be covered and which will not.  The fact that this healthcare package only applies to people aged 20-60 and is being paid for through cuts to medicare is in essence 'trying to kill my grandmother'.  The rhetoric is used to stress the importance of this issue,  which I don't feel that proponents of Obamacare fully grasp.

Unless your poor or middle class and still might go bankrupt over the health care bills, do you deny this is a concern for many people? May I ask people from EU nations and Canada do people there go bankrupt over medical debts or if your a low income person you can't get care for say diabetes or other conditions?

And oddly the ID issue rears its ugly head to access health care and government program care you need an ID that is acceptable, what if you can't get one and therefore don't get into Medicaid when it goes off as an income only benefit. Its assured to be at least the poverty line as a cut-off regardless of other factors.

Back to this issue do you want this law repealed or not or just fixed, say the companies could add basic costs to the health care delivery say filing paperwork, deciding what treatments work best at the least cost, cost saving innovations into that end. I feel that if they end up saving 8% of the routine costs of a patients care and the result is they are not healthy or the condition managed they should get that money as profit in that case. That is how you get companies to do more, innovate the system and allow them fair added profits IMHO but they are not doing that sadly.



As it stands,  a person with a life-threatening illness and no insurance or assets will receive the care they need.  They also receive special protections as hospital bills cannot produce asset seizure or wage garnishment the same way other liabilities can.  It can wreck your credit,  but losing the ability to borrow money does not put you on the street or force you into poverty.  For people in need,  there are many philanthropic organizations that help people get expensive operations or basic healthcare.  Neighborhood churches make that a large part of their missionary outreach,  and is a favorite charity among anonymous donors.

As for requiring legitimate identification,  it will be even easier for unscrupulous people to defraud the system,  as illegal immigrants often have valid identification from sanctuary states.  Already they come from all over the world to benefit from our topnotch healthcare services,  imagine how much more when it is 'free'.  This is to say nothing of hypochondriacs who overutilise the system as it stands.

I would like to see this law repealed.  No good will come of it,  and the damage done has been a terrible price, already.  I don't see how a pencil pusher from Washington could help a profit driven industry to cut costs without denying us the best possible treatment, or allowing more people access to it will help drive down the costs for paying customers.  What I do see is an internal threat to my American way of life.

There is something to be said for the value of preventive medicine over curative measures,  but what are they going to do, force me to go to the doctor for regular checkups? Doctors who graduated top of their class,  and are on call 24/7, you want to hold them to an acceptable profit ratio?  How do you expect to keep research and development dedicated to medicine?  What is going to happen to lesser countries when America needs more doctors?  Is my smoking and drinking and having unprotected sex a waste of taxpayer dollars?  Are they going to have more say in my dietary choices?   

That is never going to happen.  Only, instead of simply not doing business with an insurance company,  and trusting the free market to regulate itself,  I'm going to have to go to guns or butter with the government, who would love nothing more than to suck more blood from free enterprise, put the unemployed in labor camps,  and then just write us off at retirement.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2011, 09:22:39 PM »

No, you and your armed forces colleagues will continue to enjoy your benefits, as will public sector employees and elected officials.  The private sector will continue to shoulder the burden of your government benefits.  This will dramatically reduce the costs associated with hiring a public sector employee,  increasing the size and scope of government.

No offense taken,  but how am I being likened to an adherent of a suicide pact?  The idea of death panels being 'trotted out' is a very rational fear that a government bureaucrat will decide which procedures will be covered and which will not.  The fact that this healthcare package only applies to people aged 20-60 and is being paid for through cuts to medicare is in essence 'trying to kill my grandmother'.  The rhetoric is used to stress the importance of this issue,  which I don't feel that proponents of Obamacare fully grasp.
Quote

Wow! That was pretty pointed.

Okay, how is the fear of a public offical deciding treatment different from a for profit HMO exec doing the same thing with an eye towards the bottom line? I watched friends lose out on medical programs because they worked in the Naval Nuke program. No history of any problems but because they worked around nuclear reactors.

I think that we need less partisan and DEFINITELY less industry angling for their bottom line.  The problem is people in BOTH parties are now party members and not leaders and statesmen.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2011, 01:07:17 AM »

This is the crux of the issue at hand.  When you buy insurance,  you gamble that you will need expensive procedures that outway the costs of your premiums.  When companies sell you insurance,  they gamble that they will be able to recuperate the expenses through the power of investment.  Allowing people to purchase insurance with preexisting conditions is like opening a casino where everyone wins,  thus the need for an individual mandate.

 The problem though is that you HAVE to pay one way or another. Either by buying health insurance or by paying a fine. You cannot just say  'screw it' and do without. You're being forced to buy it, just by being an American citizen.

 There are people who can buy any care they need. They don;t need health insurance, yet this bill will force them to buy it or pay a fine for not doing so. WHY should we be forced to buy health care if we do not want it?

Offline Serephino

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2011, 01:08:59 AM »
Either way you get a pencil pusher.  You either get one from Washington, or one from a fancy office building deciding whether or not the treatment you need is worth the cost.  There have been unfortunate people who paid that premium their whole lives without needing much, but then they get really sick and need it, and the insurance company decides the treatment is too expensive.

Then there were the lifetime limits.  There is no limit to how much you pay them however.  You could sign up for a $125/month policy fresh out of college, and get cancer in your 60's.  Do you have any idea how expensive cancer is to treat?  My mom still owes several hundred thousand dollars for my dad's treatment, and he died 11 years ago...

Okay, so say your lifetime limit is 1 million.  Guess how long it takes to go through that?  Probably not very long.  Once you hit that limit, they don't care how sick you are, they drop you, and you won't be able to get coverage from anyone else. 

I have a permanent minor disability because of this country's 'wonderful' health care system.  I broke my arm in gym class when I was 14.  The HMO we had at the time required permission from my PCP to go to the ER if it wasn't a life threatening situation.  Well, a broken arm won't kill you, it just hurts like hell. 

The problem came when we found out my PCP was still listed as the doctor that had moved somewhere else weeks before that.  The paperwork to change it hadn't gone through yet.  We had to track him down after office hours.  I broke my arm at around 3:30pm.  I got to the ER about 8:00 pm.  That's a long time to sit in your living room with a broken arm, let me tell you.  During that time my bones tried to fix themselves.  I have what's called a bone spur that connects the two bones in my forearm.  You know how you can stick your arms out and rotate them so that your palms face upward?  My left arm doesn't do that anymore because of that spur, and I can't lift more than 15lbs.  It's fixable, but not medically necessary, so I'll have this the rest of my life. 

Then there was my gallstone.  Also not life threatening, so the surgeon wouldn't operate unless I coughed up $1300.  For about 5 months I lived in almost constant pain on a diet of grilled chicken and vegetables because that was all I could keep down.  I looked for charities, talked to several surgeons, anything I could think of.  I had that stone until someone was dumb enough to give me enough credit.  Then I ended up declaring bankruptcy, which kills your credit, and your credit is everything in this country.  You can't even rent an apartment or get a cell phone without good credit.     

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2011, 08:09:48 AM »
The problem though is that you HAVE to pay one way or another. Either by buying health insurance or by paying a fine. You cannot just say  'screw it' and do without. You're being forced to buy it, just by being an American citizen.

 There are people who can buy any care they need. They don;t need health insurance, yet this bill will force them to buy it or pay a fine for not doing so. WHY should we be forced to buy health care if we do not want it?

Because for a universal coverage system to keep costs down for insurers for adverse risk they must enroll everyone healthy and young and the sickly into the system. As for the law the Supreme Court is going to hear the case and will decide on the standing of the law. If they nix the mandate there are other options such as penalizing people when they opt to get insurance or penailizing their employers that amount for covering you. Say for every year not insured you meed to pay a 10% higher premium with grace periods and the like and that would not require a law. So if you opted out and later ACME hired you after two years THEY would have to pay 20% more to cover you and that by law would be only payable by them. That might encourage people that could afford insurance to get covered if it means employers having to pay more or not hire this person over the other parties applying. [My example likely the penalties would be lower but the idea would be the same.]

Offline Vekseid

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2011, 09:00:25 AM »
I will.  Destroying our insurance industry is the single most damaging blow the socialists could inflict upon this country.  In America we enjoy the best healthcare in the world, by lightyears,

This is such a blatant lie as to be laughable. The default measure of health care quality is to measure life expectancy. We're tied with Cuba. Go USA.

Longtime members of this forum and friends of members of this forum are dead due to raw medical incompetence in this country, including the woman in my signature, who would be alive today had she only had a slightly more attentive doctor mere weeks earlier. Another woman died from a punctured lung...during a knee surgery.

Forcing the poor into ER is flat-out ridiculous. One member had to wait until an infection became an emergency, so she spent five days in ICU because she could not afford antibiotics. Another could not go to the doctor for her headaches. Rather than spend several hundred dollars on preventative care, we're happy to spend a quarter of a million for her to suffer through chemo for years.

Norway solved its MSRA problem. Here it's still a terror.

Quote
and people from all other countries (yes, even Europe) are pouring into the United States for the most up-to-date treatment.  A century ago,  the wealthy might travel by steam power to see a specialist in Paris or Vienna, but today it is Johns Hopkins or Vanderbilt.

And yet for the not so wealthy, 'medical tourism' is about going the other direction. When I lacked insurance, the Mayo was one of the few institutions that would treat me, yes. They wanted $3,000 just for the evaluation. For one of the most routine surgeries in the world. For that, I could fly to Prague, meet some Elliquiy members, get treated, and fly back.

The excellence of the Mayo and Hopkins has less to do with the magic of the talent they hire and more to do with the fact that they have developed better incentives for doctors to actually treat patients.

Quote
This is because our powerful free market has attracted the brightest doctors in the world,  and there is great incentive to research and invent the very best techniques money can buy.  Whatever their overhead,  insurance companies compete for your business - naturally regulating the cost and the services offered.  Once they've gone out of business,  it will be nigh impossible to restart the industry,  and the costs and benefits of medicine will be in the hands of incompetent bureaucrats.

Insurance companies don't compete for business in many states. Exempt from antitrust laws, they are happy to establish monopolies and engage in blatant price fixing without recourse, while providing said same incompetent bureaucrats in the form of rescission workers.

Quote
I cannot believe this article in Forbes has the writer cackling with glee as the unlikelyhood of their survival looms near.  Already, he states,  they are seeking other investments.  This is bad news for the healthcare sector,  as Medicare's wasteful spending,  easy fraud,  and outright denial of service demonstrates.

Let me guess, you were shouting 'Death Panels!' right alongside the rest when it was proposed to take care of the main offender of said wasteful spending.

Quote
The bomb in Obamacare is the stipulation that anyone who does not purchase $2100 in annual health insurance goes to jail.  Over my dead body.

That's a bridge that will be burned when it happens.



You'll forgive my American bias, but when I talk to people who have travelled to the U.S. to receive healthcare they invariably complain about waiting periods in their home country, usually six to eight months.  They are happy to have the opportunity to spend whatever it costs for lifesaving procedures, particularly when they were unlikely to survive the waiting period.  I fear that socialized medicine in America will leave them and us with nowhere left to run.

This is usually for very specific problems in said health care system. This isn't true of Japan, for example. "We need to schedule a surgery... how does next Tuesday look?"

Japan has other problems (getting a second opinion can be seen as insulting to the original doctor and is generally Not Done), but that's cultural.

Quote
This is the crux of the issue at hand.  When you buy insurance,  you gamble that you will need expensive procedures that outway the costs of your premiums.  When companies sell you insurance,  they gamble that they will be able to recuperate the expenses through the power of investment.  Allowing people to purchase insurance with preexisting conditions is like opening a casino where everyone wins,  thus the need for an individual mandate.

No, when you buy health insurance, you are taking advantage of said provider's ability to dictate prices. The larger the insurer, the more powerful their ability to dictate.

To say nothing of the fact that, as a self employed person with conditions on my record, it would cost me six thousand dollars a month to buy insurance. And I'd still have to pay for my surgery out of pocket. That isn't free market competition.

Quote
No, you and your armed forces colleagues will continue to enjoy your benefits, as will public sector employees and elected officials.  The private sector will continue to shoulder the burden of your government benefits.  This will dramatically reduce the costs associated with hiring a public sector employee,  increasing the size and scope of government.

This is a non sequitur. Two, actually. It neither follows that public employee costs will reduce because of a collapse of private insurers, nor does it follow that reduced employee costs would cause a larger government.

Quote
No offense taken,  but how am I being likened to an adherent of a suicide pact?  The idea of death panels being 'trotted out' is a very rational fear that a government bureaucrat will decide which procedures will be covered and which will not.  The fact that this healthcare package only applies to people aged 20-60 and is being paid for through cuts to medicare is in essence 'trying to kill my grandmother'.  The rhetoric is used to stress the importance of this issue,  which I don't feel that proponents of Obamacare fully grasp.

"Death panels" was trotted out to giving older people actual end of life care, rather than wasting 60% of our health care spending in making them suffer for six more months. Their lifespan would be increased by a far greater amount if they had better care before 65. It was originally a Republican proposal, but because Obama tried it, that makes it worthy of attack.

Of course, people such as yourself blatantly overlook the fact that private health insurers essentially are barriers to care in our current system, often denying critically needed treatments.

Quote
As it stands,  a person with a life-threatening illness and no insurance or assets will receive the care they need.  They also receive special protections as hospital bills cannot produce asset seizure or wage garnishment the same way other liabilities can.  It can wreck your credit,  but losing the ability to borrow money does not put you on the street or force you into poverty.  For people in need,  there are many philanthropic organizations that help people get expensive operations or basic healthcare.  Neighborhood churches make that a large part of their missionary outreach,  and is a favorite charity among anonymous donors.

And yet, the prime cause of bankruptcies in the United States is what?

And how many of them had insurance?

Half a percent of the voting population loses their insurance each year. That sort of bullshit is only going to go on for so long before the fraud gets tossed on its head.

Quote
As for requiring legitimate identification,  it will be even easier for unscrupulous people to defraud the system,  as illegal immigrants often have valid identification from sanctuary states.  Already they come from all over the world to benefit from our topnotch healthcare services,  imagine how much more when it is 'free'.  This is to say nothing of hypochondriacs who overutilise the system as it stands.

Nonpayers already do place that burden on our system. Go to a medical forum and you will see doctors bitch about how good people who are down on their luck struggle to afford basic care while they have to give effectively free ER care to bums and druggies.

And, of course, the threat of a hypochondria declaration did nearly kill the friend of another member here, who had a life threatening condition, but the hospital could not find it after five visits. If another friend had not stood up for them, your 'finest healthcare in the world' would have left them to die in agony.

Because the hospital would not do a fucking X Ray.

Quote
I would like to see this law repealed.  No good will come of it,  and the damage done has been a terrible price, already.  I don't see how a pencil pusher from Washington could help a profit driven industry to cut costs without denying us the best possible treatment, or allowing more people access to it will help drive down the costs for paying customers.  What I do see is an internal threat to my American way of life.

Of course you don't see it. In common parlance, this is because you are 'drinking the kool-aid'. You have bought bullshit right-wing talking points hook, line, and sinker, and happily regurgitate the bald-faced lies you've been told.

Eventually, however, reality will assert itself.

Quote
There is something to be said for the value of preventive medicine over curative measures,  but what are they going to do, force me to go to the doctor for regular checkups? Doctors who graduated top of their class,  and are on call 24/7, you want to hold them to an acceptable profit ratio?

Doctors in general are overworked and underpaid, very little health care money actually goes to them. Most of it goes to overpriced goods (I paid $40 for a piece of gauze and tape, for fuck's sake) and frivolous testing.

Quote
How do you expect to keep research and development dedicated to medicine?

Probably the same way America got to that lead in the first place, and why other nations are catching up to the US while American prestige is falling.

Quote
What is going to happen to lesser countries when America needs more doctors?

Nothing. We'll just hire the Indian doctors currently working as New York taxi drivers.

Quote
Is my smoking and drinking and having unprotected sex a waste of taxpayer dollars?  Are they going to have more say in my dietary choices?   

Well, I know some medical professionals -as is- who would give you less time of day -right now- simply because you do those two things. They'd much rather be treating people who just had something horrible happen to them through little to no fault of their own, rather than some ignorant jackass who waltzes into trouble.

Quote
That is never going to happen.  Only, instead of simply not doing business with an insurance company,  and trusting the free market to regulate itself,  I'm going to have to go to guns or butter with the government, who would love nothing more than to suck more blood from free enterprise, put the unemployed in labor camps,  and then just write us off at retirement.

You don't even know what the market hypothesis is, where it works, or why, and believe our current system of lobbyist infested corporatism is 'free enterprise'. Hint: It isn't free enterprise if lobbyists can insert legal barriers to entry.

If you refuse to learn basic terminology, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2011, 09:06:53 AM »
For the Free Market to be free I will note this for this debate - you need three things no insurance at all so there is not outside force affecting prices, no government regulation save for the safety issue they cannot and shouldn't decide if a treatment works or is better than current options and the last clear and open pricing it needs to be like going to a contractor if they give you an estimate it cannot go over that amount by so much without your consent.

Those are not going to happen.

Would the system survive if the medical providers had to take cash and what people can pay as it now stands?

Offline Vekseid

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2011, 11:04:42 AM »
For the market hypothesis to function, it requires that there be a large number of suppliers, a large number of consumers, and that all participants are fully informed.

The former two imply antitrust regulation. The latter implies truth and disclosure regulations.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2011, 01:38:00 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206,0,6794828.story

An opinion piece from a woman with breast cancer, detailing her experiences.

For me, for being a Canadian, just the implications of what she's saying is blowing my mind...

Offline Zakharra

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2011, 02:10:04 PM »
Because for a universal coverage system to keep costs down for insurers for adverse risk they must enroll everyone healthy and young and the sickly into the system. As for the law the Supreme Court is going to hear the case and will decide on the standing of the law. If they nix the mandate there are other options such as penalizing people when they opt to get insurance or penailizing their employers that amount for covering you. Say for every year not insured you meed to pay a 10% higher premium with grace periods and the like and that would not require a law. So if you opted out and later ACME hired you after two years THEY would have to pay 20% more to cover you and that by law would be only payable by them. That might encourage people that could afford insurance to get covered if it means employers having to pay more or not hire this person over the other parties applying. [My example likely the penalties would be lower but the idea would be the same.]

 So you have no problem with the mandate that forces people to pay one way or another, no matter what?  If someone doesn't want or need insurance, why should they pay a fine for not having it?

 If this passes, I can easily see this being used as a precedent to force people to comply with federal programs, to either join it, or pay a fine until you do join it.  Personally, I think it's a very bad precedent to set.

 What happens if/when (I think it will be more of a 'when' than 'if') insurance companies close shop? Where will the formerly covered people go? To governmental insurance programs?

Offline Serephino

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2011, 02:21:36 PM »
Ah, yes, I remember the financial office.  Before I gave in and took Medicare, I used to have to go there after every ER visit to discuss how I was going to pay them.  It was degrading.  Before that the financial office would call the next day.  They didn't even at least ask how I was feeling before asking how I intended to pay them.  That was insulting.

It's not my fault I had to go to the ER to get anything done.  I sucked it up and went to my doctor when I had gallstone symptoms.  He ordered an ultrasound, but because I was uninsured I had to pay $100 up front before they would do it.

Two years later, I have more pain.  I go straight to the ER, and what do you know, they did x-rays and ultrasounds right then and there!  I found out it was a huge kidney stone. The Urologist said it had probably been there several years, which makes me wonder why no one said anything about it when they found the gallstone.   

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2011, 03:51:18 PM »
Because for a universal coverage system to keep costs down for insurers for adverse risk they must enroll everyone healthy and young and the sickly into the system. As for the law the Supreme Court is going to hear the case and will decide on the standing of the law. If they nix the mandate there are other options such as penalizing people when they opt to get insurance or penailizing their employers that amount for covering you. Say for every year not insured you meed to pay a 10% higher premium with grace periods and the like and that would not require a law. So if you opted out and later ACME hired you after two years THEY would have to pay 20% more to cover you and that by law would be only payable by them. That might encourage people that could afford insurance to get covered if it means employers having to pay more or not hire this person over the other parties applying. [My example likely the penalties would be lower but the idea would be the same.]

Cost have still skyrocketed in Massachusetts with Romney's mandate, it doesn't work.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2011, 06:33:13 PM »
I have to say that I'm not all that sorry for the insurance companies, and I'll tell you why: the insurance company already doesn't cover all my costs. I have a 30% coinsurance requirement on my policy. If I go to the hospital for whatever reason and the bill is $1000, they pay $700 and that's all of it. So they're essentially being ordered to spend 85% of what I pay them on 70% of my costs. Considering the fact that the whole concept behind insurance is that you pay in and they get money regardless of whether you're sick or not - and the fact that my yearly cost of insurance is in itself over $2000 whether I go to the doctor or not, I feel not a single twinge of remorse for them. The whole point of insurance is numbers: out of ten people who each pay $2k each year, one of those people might actually end up in the hospital with a $50k bill, and it won't be every year. The point of insurance is banking on the fact that the premium paid by the other nine people will help share out the cost of your bill and it will be spread over several years. That's what their business is. That's what they got into. It's not exactly rocket science to call it money held in trust. Yes, they have overhead, but making profit off of peoples' misfortune is just perverse. Protecting that profit by ditching their customers when those customers actually needed to make use of the benefits they'd been paying for is reprehensible.

And getting only a 15% cut of thousands of dollars per year per person is nothing to cry over. People keep saying that premiums will go up - so what? A crapton of people can't pay anyway. It's a net loss for them if they hike premiums, and they'll go out of business anyway.

Cost have still skyrocketed in Massachusetts with Romney's mandate, it doesn't work.

That's because Romney is an idiot.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2011, 06:44:23 PM »
So you have no problem with the mandate that forces people to pay one way or another, no matter what?  If someone doesn't want or need insurance, why should they pay a fine for not having it?

 If this passes, I can easily see this being used as a precedent to force people to comply with federal programs, to either join it, or pay a fine until you do join it.  Personally, I think it's a very bad precedent to set.

 What happens if/when (I think it will be more of a 'when' than 'if') insurance companies close shop? Where will the formerly covered people go? To governmental insurance programs?

Yes but its not my decision its in the hands of the Supreme Court, they will decide this matter. Like I said the law overall is constitutional its the mandate in question they could remove that and leave the rest of it intact. Then they would need another mechanism in use to compel people into the system such as they used for the drug plan under Medicare.

But to get the cost benefit the requirement of everyone get coverage that can is usually needed to broaden the risk pools thats all I mentioned pretty much.

And states have to do their part, in the case of states they regulate health insurance and enact laws so they could control costs also but that means saying no to someone not something politicians like to do.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2011, 07:28:50 PM »
Yes but its not my decision its in the hands of the Supreme Court, they will decide this matter. Like I said the law overall is constitutional its the mandate in question they could remove that and leave the rest of it intact. Then they would need another mechanism in use to compel people into the system such as they used for the drug plan under Medicare.

But to get the cost benefit the requirement of everyone get coverage that can is usually needed to broaden the risk pools thats all I mentioned pretty much.

And states have to do their part, in the case of states they regulate health insurance and enact laws so they could control costs also but that means saying no to someone not something politicians like to do.

 I cannot believe what you just said there. If the USSC finds the mandate unconstitutional, you say they should find a way to compel people to get health insurance? How the hell would that constitutional if the mandate (and I hope to all of the gods that IS found unconstitutional) is found not to be? That they should go around and basically ignore the law?

 On a side note, aren't over half of the states in the US filling actions to be able to opt out of the plan anyways? If they can opt out, why can't US citizens?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2011, 08:47:58 PM »
Compel not force lets say you opt out and in five years want insurance you could get it but say for 6% higher premiums and deductibles. You would not have to get it but might want to sooner.

Again I would have kept it simple the same taxes on businesses and the like but pool all the monies into one fund and give each state based on the census figures a block grant of it then tell the states you cover everyone save those on Medicare and Tricare as you see fit under these guidelines for basic services. If you don't agree to do this say in 90 days we will remove any and all Federal funding and program access to your state and its businesses and citizens. Decide. This means no extra education money, road funds, pell grants, federal backed loans, grants, research money, medical funds for the indigent and the like unless there is a commitment to do so Medicaid or an established contract or deal.

Then its a choice of each state do it or no Federal funds for anything save maybe vital national things like natural disasters and I would even cut off FEMA funds just crank on the screws.

This would have been constitutional and gotten the same results in the end likely very fast.  >:)

Offline Serephino

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2011, 10:29:46 PM »
Penalties do not help anything.  If you can't afford coverage now, how in the hell are you supposed to be able to afford it when the premium is higher? 

That is how Medicare is run, and I'm screwed because of it.  When I first became eligible, my premium would have been $96.  I couldn't afford that.  We were barely making ends meet as it was, so I needed that money to survive.

But then I had the gallstone, and complications with that.  Kidney stones after that.  I was getting sick and going bankrupt anyway.  I was able to find slightly better policies for about the same, but I couldn't get them.  Why?  Because Medicare Part A is mandatory.  It doesn't cost anything, and only covers in-patient hospital stuff. 

So when the insurance companies put me through their system they saw had I had Medicare Part A and said oh hell no.  I had one honest salesman tell me it was mostly because they figure if I'm disabled at my age, then there's probably something horribly wrong with me, and I would be expensive to cover.  That's not true in my case, but whatever.

So, after a few years, I said screw it and enrolled in Medicare Part B.  Because of the stupid yearly 10% penalty, my premium is now $150!  Yeah, they tacked on the stupid penalty for this year even though I was taking it.  Now I can't pay my rent. 

What needs to be done is the cost needs to be lower.  Like I said, the threat of the penalty never changed the fact that I couldn't afford it to begin with.  If someone can't afford it than they can't afford it.  All you're doing by tacking on a penalty is making the problem worse.  I seriously hate ex-President Bush for this....

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2011, 10:35:21 PM »
Compel not force lets say you opt out and in five years want insurance you could get it but say for 6% higher premiums and deductibles. You would not have to get it but might want to sooner.

Again I would have kept it simple the same taxes on businesses and the like but pool all the monies into one fund and give each state based on the census figures a block grant of it then tell the states you cover everyone save those on Medicare and Tricare as you see fit under these guidelines for basic services. If you don't agree to do this say in 90 days we will remove any and all Federal funding and program access to your state and its businesses and citizens. Decide. This means no extra education money, road funds, pell grants, federal backed loans, grants, research money, medical funds for the indigent and the like unless there is a commitment to do so Medicaid or an established contract or deal.

Then its a choice of each state do it or no Federal funds for anything save maybe vital national things like natural disasters and I would even cut off FEMA funds just crank on the screws.

This would have been constitutional and gotten the same results in the end likely very fast.  >:)


Wow, talk about cramming the Federal government into our lives in a very large way. You protest a national ID but then want the Federal Government to have the right to tell states what to do. Methinks you should step back and look at what you are saying here because you are contradicting yourself with these two issues.

Oh, and have a read here. It describes what the federal governments limits are suppose to be and what powers the states have ... per the Framers of the Constitution.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2011, 10:46:59 PM »
Compel not force

 Wrong!
 com·pel

verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.
5.
Archaic . to drive together; unite by force; herd.
verb (used without object)
6.
to use force.


 That is force.

lets say you opt out and in five years want insurance you could get it but say for 6% higher premiums and deductibles. You would not have to get it but might want to sooner.

 And as Serephino pointed out, someone that cannot afford it is screwed because if they can't pay the premium, they are doubly screwed because they can't pay the fine either way.

lAgain I would have kept it simple the same taxes on businesses and the like but pool all the monies into one fund and give each state based on the census figures a block grant of it then tell the states you cover everyone save those on Medicare and Tricare as you see fit under these guidelines for basic services. If you don't agree to do this say in 90 days we will remove any and all Federal funding and program access to your state and its businesses and citizens. Decide. This means no extra education money, road funds, pell grants, federal backed loans, grants, research money, medical funds for the indigent and the like unless there is a commitment to do so Medicaid or an established contract or deal.

Then its a choice of each state do it or no Federal funds for anything save maybe vital national things like natural disasters and I would even cut off FEMA funds just crank on the screws.

This would have been constitutional and gotten the same results in the end likely very fast.  >:)

 So it's the Federal way or no way. So much for States rights...  Rights the Constitution is supposed to protect. Rights which would be stripped away under the plan you propose.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2011, 10:57:20 PM »

Wow, talk about cramming the Federal government into our lives in a very large way. You protest a national ID but then want the Federal Government to have the right to tell states what to do. Methinks you should step back and look at what you are saying here because you are contradicting yourself with these two issues.

Oh, and have a read here. It describes what the federal governments limits are suppose to be and what powers the states have ... per the Framers of the Constitution.


The Federal ID makes it impossible for some people to get ID, the states had the right to have two tiers one for state use and then a Federal REAL ID version so it was not an infringement at the DHS level but at my state level. I never said they cannot demand a Federally approved ID for Federal uses at all.

And this would uphold states rights they can opt out under my idea and just lose Federal funding and benefits, you seem to want that to since most of these are not in the orginal constitution. You can't have it both ways either you can't have the Federal government out of states and your lives then on the other hand have Federal interests in non-constitutional areas - for example there is no provision for a standing army or air force the states are to have militias they fund and officers appointed by the Federal government who are paid for by the states. There should be no CIA, FBI, NSA, CDC, FDA, Department of Education, EPA and well most agencies now in play. After all the only constitutional Federal crimes is treason, countefieting and piracy which demanded little prison space. Unless you amended the constitution to add more crimes most of the crimes now crimes are state matters - murder in Florida of a Federal agent should then be tried as murder in Florida not a Federal crime as an example.

I find my views consistant I admit they need these agencies to deal with real threats and a standing army, maybe even for some people a Federal ID as long as my state can offer a non-Federal version and do so which is why I consider the fact they didn't a violation under state constititutional provisions.

But the government can do what it wants with its money so if they offer it to cover everyone and have a big club their money if the state refuses its fine, they don't have to do anything they are not obligated to by constitutional mandate or in place obligations. States can say no. Even Medicaid they could opt out of at any time its elective.

As for a matter of the law in the high court what if they strike down the mandate only everything else will kick in including the medicaid expansion based on income limits, corporate taxes, exchanges and the like just there will be less funding to do the programs. That could happen to you know and they could opt to require the mandate but nix the tax penalties so you might have to get insured just there is no penalty for not doing so. Or they could expand Federal powers invoking the unique case of health care as a market to only appy to health care and let it stand. Who knows for sure.

As for FEMA I would point out they are funded for national emergencies I would think my example very unlikely in that regard but the cutting off ofstates, businesses and citizens of Federal funding, programs and benefits not obligatory is sound to use. Is there an obligation that you pay taxes and get money back in each state - no. The money is really up to the Federal government to allocate and they can just say no. They did it before for the age limit for drinking comes to mind. 

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2011, 11:09:54 PM »
Personally, I am one of those that wants LESS government. I think we have too much government in our lives as is. I do not believe in paying federal taxes (as the whole tax system is illegal to begin with and was started to fund a war and the government promised it would end as soon as the war did.) though I pay with every paycheck.

And let me point out the inconsistency Ruby. You want the government to be able to say “Do what we say or else!” where healthcare is concerned. What ever in the world makes you think that if they are given that power that they wouldn’t turn around and go “Do what I say or else!” where the national ID is concerned. You can’t have it both ways Ruby. You’d scream bloody murder if the government slammed the hammer down about the national ID but you are encouraging the federal government to do just that where health care is concerned. And if the government is given the right to dictate healthcare, how long before they dictate what we eat, what we drink, whether we exercise or not, who we have sex with, how many children we can have, what we can watch on tv, where we live, etc etc etc. Damn slippery slope there.

Originally the federal government was an overseeing body while each state had it’s own power. That is becoming less and less as we go on.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Good news or bad? You decide.
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2011, 11:28:22 PM »
Time for America to go to a single-payer system like the rest of the industrialized world has and be done with it.  Those who want gold-plated private hospital beds can still see a doctor outside the national system.  If the rich and the Ayn Rand fanboys/girls are in such mortal terror of the notion of having to sit next to a poor person in the waiting room of their doctor's office, they can just STFU and pop a Valium and chill out and deal with it.

Having said that, I think Obamacare is a bad idea--especially the part about HAVING to buy health insurance.  I don't think I should be made to subsidize some CEO's private jet or multimillion-dollar golden parachute.  I don't mind paying a few more percent in taxes for it though.