Healthcare Reform

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Healthcare Reform

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:19 pm

I'm absolutely amazed Kiryan hasn't posted anything yet. He must be slipping...

So how does everyone feel about this? The only thing I've really heard about it is that it will require families to buy health insurance if they don't have some already. That doesn't actually sit terribly well with me, as I know there are a lot of times when I was a kid that affording FOOD was troublesome... there's no way we could have afforded healthcare.

Am I missing something on that?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:04 pm

I'm no expert on the bill by any stretch of the imagination. I think though the part you are missing is the fact that insurers could not deny your application for insurance due to a pre-existing condition. So for instance if you don't buy health insurance there is a tax of I think around $2,000 per person per year. But why not just pay the tax and once you actually become sick buy the insurance? I would expect that the tax is cheaper than the insurance, no?

As for low income Americans, they wouldn't have to buy insurance as medicaid would be expanded to 133% of the poverty line.

Honestly, I don't think anyone likes the bill. Obviously not the Republicans who would like to see less government involvement in the industry. But I think the Democrats are dissatisfied too, as most of them would rather see a more comprehensive solution. Truth be told, we are probably better off with a more comprehensive solution than some half assed solution. Or even better, deregulate the whole thing. But I digress. I think the Dems probably supported it because it's a foot in the door. Once you create a huge program like this it's very difficult to get rid of it.. a lot easier to amend it, expand it, etc.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:22 pm

I'm in denial and waiting for the constitutional challenges. I like to think they erred here by creating an individual mandate with a penalty instead of making it a tax and providing a credit if you have health insurance... but I'm no lawyer.

I'm also depressed. If the polls are to believed then we just passed major, unpopular legislation, that they refused to compromise enough to get 1 single republican vote (who represent at least roughly 50% of the population) we created new entitlements in the trillions and spent a trillion to save a hundred billion in 10 years (if you can figure out how that works, tell me). Besides the audacity of this willfullness... we have guaranteed at least 3 more years of political gridlock and fighting if not a decade or two more (I don't really believe the current reform will work).

Our government has just f*ked America in the ass with no lubricant. Now all we need is the sand of immigration reform and climate change.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:53 pm

kiryan wrote:I'm in denial and waiting for the constitutional challenges. I like to think they erred here by creating an individual mandate with a penalty instead of making it a tax and providing a credit if you have health insurance... but I'm no lawyer.

I dunno about the federal level, but most states already have a similar policy in place with car insurance. I'm required by state law to hold collision coverage, and if I don't, I'm assessed a $400 (last time I checked) annual "no insurance fee."

Whether you agree with the policy or not, I think you're going to have a hard time seeing constitutional challenge.

I'm also depressed. If the polls are to believed then we just passed major, unpopular legislation, that they refused to compromise enough to get 1 single republican vote (who represent at least roughly 50% of the population) we created new entitlements in the trillions and spent a trillion to save a hundred billion in 10 years (if you can figure out how that works, tell me). Besides the audacity of this willfullness... we have guaranteed at least 3 more years of political gridlock and fighting if not a decade or two more (I don't really believe the current reform will work).

1) I'm not sure what polls you're looking at. The polls I've seen indicate that the more information a person has about the health care bill, the more likely they are to support it. It's the uninformed propagandized masses who are generally unfavorable.
2) There were a large number of very serious compromises made to the bill. The fact that no Republicans voted for it speaks more toward the "just say no" political climate of the Republican party than it does the content of the bill. No public option? You got that. No tax money for abortions? You got that. I earnestly believe that there is no possible bill that could have been put forth that would have garnered any Republican support at all. This minority Congress has been too busy filibustering and blocking legislation to come to any kind of compromise on any nontrivial issue. If you believe there are 3 more years of "political gridlock," then you should write your Congressperson and urge them to be more tolerant of compromise.

I'll post here the same thing I said elsewhere:

The curious thing about the political outrage today is the seemingly omnipresent idea from the Right that America was somehow "fooled" or "tricked" into supporting healthcare. To you, I say - we were not. We voted for these politicians not in spite of their intent to regulate healthcare, but because of it. We placed these people into office willingly, knowingly, intentionally. We, the majority of Americans, believe that privatized health care in our country has degraded to the point where it cannot, or will not, be sustained justly and fairly by the private sector alone. We know it will cost money. We know there are risks. And we believe ensuring the health of our society is worth the cost, and it's worth the risk. That is why this bill passed. Because we believe in it. We, the people.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Pril » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:29 pm

Ragorn wrote:
kiryan wrote:I'm in denial and waiting for the constitutional challenges. I like to think they erred here by creating an individual mandate with a penalty instead of making it a tax and providing a credit if you have health insurance... but I'm no lawyer.

I dunno about the federal level, but most states already have a similar policy in place with car insurance. I'm required by state law to hold collision coverage, and if I don't, I'm assessed a $400 (last time I checked) annual "no insurance fee."

Whether you agree with the policy or not, I think you're going to have a hard time seeing constitutional challenge.


Rags this is different. The insurance mandate is there if you own/operate a car. If you don't you're not taxed. The health care reform will hit everyone with no exceptions. Mind you this is coming from someone who has health insurance and hasn't been to a doctor in over 8 years.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:34 pm

There was no way the Republicans were going to compromise, regardless of whether or not the democrats gave them an opportunity to do so. The whole idea of socializing healthcare goes against the Republican platform. To that extent, when it comes to this sort of thing Ragorn is right that the Republicans are the party of 'no'.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby avak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:13 pm

Apparently yelling "you lie" to the POTUS and "baby killer" during floor debate is right in line with the party.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:31 pm

Health insurance requirement for being a live citizen of the USA is different than one requiring liability insurance for the privilege to drive.

Oh btw, the amish and certain other religious groups are exempted from this requirement.

--

Everyone I talk to about healthcare is against it. I've also seen at least one "the more people know the more they support it" poll and its fundamentally flawed. IIRC it bases support based on agreeing on various points so for example if you are buying a bike and one you are shown is red, banana seat, hand brake and 14" wheels, you may love 3 out of 4, but you're going to veto it because the wheels are too small. Many of the provisions of the healthcare reform bill are good, but a few are absolute disasters.

Here's an example, its from December, but I have seen similar ones recently that reflect the same thing. I've heard as high as 60% of Americans are agains the reform bill. But Dems shoved it through claiming that we wanted it. The definitive poll will be held in November when the entire house goes up for re-election. I expect a blood bath, but I'm sure you'll explain it away. I mean Obama explained away Scott Brown's unprecedented victory as a candidate vowing to be the 41st vote to BLOCK healthcare in the BLUEST state in the union. but the polls clearly show americans want what the democrats are selling.

Rasmussen: 55 against 41 for
Qunnipiac: 52 against 38 for
NBC: 47 to 32 against
Gallup: 43 to 36 against
Las Vegas Review Journal: 53 to 39 against
Fox News: 57 to 34 with 54 wanting nothing
CNN: has a story reporting that a majority of Americans see the “reform” as increasing costs and offering no help to them personally.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6356-Wichita- ... -to-resist

--
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:29 pm

From what I've heard, Reuters has an excellent summary of the health care bill.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:02 pm

If government wants to ensure that everyone has health insurance, whether it works or not, the only choice it has is to force people to get it, or force them to accept it.

Of course, (you probably already figured this out) I am vehemently against any such measures to yoke the people to work for the collective.

If government simply wants to make it affordable for everyone, they have to force those in the healthcare industry to give it at a rate everyone can afford, yoking them to work for the collective.

The trouble with that (yes, I'm against that as well) is when you eventually kill the beast of burden, you're forced to carry everything it did yourself.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:47 pm

Fewer metaphors, more facts, please.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:50 pm

While you seem upset that the government will 'require' everyone to have health care, and this is supposedly a bad thing - I can't help but wonder, isn't this simply a phrasing language? I mean I don't really believe at all that the government can be using this as an agenda to fine people into poverty.

With the increase in government protection of 133% of the poverty line, combined with the hefty fines for small businesses over 50 employees that don't provide an insurance option for their employees that the vast majority of Americans will fall under the umbrella of one of these options - even the self employed/micro businesses are going to be getting financial assistance in making this happen.

What surprises me is that most right-leaning arguments tend to completely disregard the changes put in place to existing private coverage. while it does not solve all of the John Q problems, quite a lot of steps are being put in place to force these companies to play the game fair, or at least level it out. the HMO marketing machine WANTS you to be outraged that some fat guy gets treated the same as some healthy person, but at the end of the day - they would just as quickly drop that healthy guy who comes down with a sudden case of the 'oh shit cancer' sickness as they would LOVE to keep that fat guy around and watch him slowly kill himself on their dollars.

the fact is that since their inception, private HMO's have made billions by misleading Americans, bankrolling elections, and screwing over the people who paid for their services. In what other industry would any of you stand behind and defend those practices?

Personally I think the REAL reason that the right and the HMOs have spent so many millions of dollars and media hours in making us think this is the end of the free world is because with this legislation - capital gains and investments are being taxed, which hits the 'inherited money' class in the wallets, and because this bill taxes the shit out of pharmaceuticals and health care providers, as well as employers who cut costs by not providing their employees with health care in the first place.

Anyone who thinks the people who are being wronged in this case represent the majority or even a sizable percentage of the voting population is going to learn a hard lesson in november.

As the fountain of 'this is evil' money runs dry, you are going to see more and more positive media coverage on this topic, the facts will come out, and obama is going to walk into the 2012 elections without needing to campaign at all.

Remember, the last president who 'socialized' anything in our country was re-elected 3 times.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:53 pm

Daz wrote:With the increase in government protection of 133% of the poverty line, combined with the hefty fines for small businesses over 50 employees that don't provide an insurance option for their employees that the vast majority of Americans will fall under the umbrella of one of these options - even the self employed/micro businesses are going to be getting financial assistance in making this happen.


Why? Can someone explain to me why, if the purpose of this bill was to "reform" healthcare, did it not remove the responsibility of providing healthcare from companies and place it solely on the individual? Why should the place of business I work for be the one STILL responsible (since WWII0 for my healthcare? What logic is there to that? Shouldn't that just be on my shoulders? My work isn't in charge of my home insurance, car insurance, schooling for my children, etc. etc.

I really thought that the idea behind this bill was that now "I" had to pay x amount of reasonable money for healthcare based on my income level, or be fined the 2k, but that's it. So this shit is still the responsibility of 50+ employee businesses? Really? See my idea of what was gonna happen was more along the line of public education. We all pay a fine based on how much money our house is worth, and then everyone can send their kids to school for "free".

Also, does this bill create only ONE insurance package that everyone is entitled falls under, or are there different ones for different people? So like, the poor get one, the middle class get another, and politicians get a third? Just curious, I haven't been able to find info on this.
Last edited by Adriorn Darkcloak on Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:03 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Can someone explain to me why, if the purpose of this bill was to "reform" healthcare, did it not remove the responsibility of providing healthcare from companies and place it solely on the individual? Why should the place of business I work for be the one responsible for my healthcare? What logic is there to that? Shouldn't that just be on my shoulders? My work isn't in charge of my home insurance, car insurance, schooling for my children, etc. etc.

I really thought that the idea behind this bill was that "I" now had to pay x amount of money for healthcare or be fined the 2k, but that's it. So this shit is still the responsibility of 50+ employee business? Really?




while at first glance your outrage seems well placed adriorn, i have to ask you - how much of what business pay for employee health coverage is written off in their taxes? i'f im not mistaken its nearly 100% tax-deductible. if the employers were not responsible for it, the employees would have to get higher compensation as opposed to any bulk-rate discounts that the employers manage to obtain. i don't know that paying those higher wages would offset this because lets say you pay 10 employees 20 thousand a year, and spend another 5 thousand a year on their coverage (yes, thats 50 thousand a year) - well, if they had to pay their own insurance, and it cost them 8 thousand each, they would want that compensation in their wages - so you'd be looking at spending an extra 30 thousand a year on wages which are not tax write-offs/credits i think.

id have to look up the details, and i know im probably not totally correct in my math, but the gist is that i'm pretty sure there IS an incentive for employers to provide coverage, and that incentive probably scales exponentially - i'd imagine the cost for a company with 200 thousand employees to provide health care to them all is WAY less than it would cost them to pay each employee the higher wages needed to get their own coverage
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:07 pm

Daz wrote:businesses get an incentive


Why should businesses have anything to do with my health insurance?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:10 pm

from what i understand they are creating an 'exchange' where people without coverage can shop among various providers and options, you are right, there are few details available because the details have been changing so frequently and rapidly. to be honest, i'll bet the vast majority of people voting in on this issue have heard more than their respective camp's talking points and would be just as stumped as any of us on certain specifics of this bill. Whoever posted earlier that this is just a 'foot in the door' piece of legislation is pretty spot-on.

from the specifics i have seen of this bill, the only real reason their is so much uproar is becauase the hmo's have spent tens of millions of dollars pushing their perspective out into the blogosphere because ultimately what i see is that this bill punishes them for taking advantage of americans for so long. they see us putting a lid on the cookie jar and they are going nuts trying to find a way to stop it.

i find it hard to believe that if this bill was as evil as they make it seem that the democrats would be so stupid as to force it down our throat. next year you won't be hearing about how american lives have been destroyed - you will be hearing private HMO's begging for government assistance, and i can assure you - good luck finding an average middle or lower class american with sympathetic votes for THAT cause.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:12 pm

So all the hundreds of thousands of people currently working for those HMOs will be out of a job soon?

BTW, if those HMOs (which are crap) were making such a huge killing, did you invest money in their stock Daz?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:15 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Daz wrote:businesses get an incentive


Why should businesses have anything to do with my health insurance?


Because they choose to. They may be influenced by the government in the form of tax breaks, but for the most part if you have health insurance through your company it's a BENEFIT. Something they can give you which is cheaper than salary, but makes you want to work for them more than the other guys. If businesses "have" to offer it, it's because not many skilled workers would sign up for a company that doesn't provide health insurance these days.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:20 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Daz wrote:businesses get an incentive


Why should businesses have anything to do with my health insurance?



you know, i keep hitting the backspace button a lot in this question. the short answer is that because it is the best way to provide coverage to the majority of americans without forcing every company in the country to give their employees a raise so they can afford insurance without a drastic change in their lifestyle.

an individual does not have the spending or bargaining power of the company they work for. you or i could NEVER in a million years get the same rates/terms for insurance coverage that a company with 50 thousand employees could negotiate. and you combine that with tax benefits and incentives and basically you have a win-win situation.

as far as i can tell the reason we are forcing them is because there are companies out there taking advantage of the fact that people need jobs and will work without benefits to pay the rent and pray they don't get sick. those companies are in turn using millions of IRC loopholes to avoid paying taxes anyway - so lets give them a way to avoid taxes legitamately and keep americans insured and we all walk away feeling better.

the real answer is that its broken, but this is the first band-aid on the gash.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:24 pm

Sarvis wrote:a company that doesn't provide health insurance these days.


Read the latter part of my old post Sarvis. Your statement was true before last night, but if we now all get "Universal Healthcare", why should companies have ANYTHING to do with it anymore? We just pay the standard(?) fee of $x that everyone else(?) has to pay and that's that. Well, if we make over 200k we have to pay more, but for us common folk the price would be the same(?). Why should my company have ANYTHING to do with it anymore?

You're both answering the question with circular logic. "Companies give you healthcare because they get tax break because they give you healthcare". Companies don't get a tax break for giving me auto insurance, home insurance, mortgage insurance, education, blah blah. If Johnny the Janitor can now get "free" healthcare from the government, why are companies still ridiculously involved in this?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:25 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:So all the hundreds of thousands of people currently working for those HMOs will be out of a job soon?

BTW, if those HMOs (which are crap) were making such a huge killing, did you invest money in their stock Daz?



well the CEO of CIGNA health care has made over 120 million dollars in the last five years, so i imagine his stockholders aren't too terribly displeased with their profits.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:28 pm

Daz wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Daz wrote:businesses get an incentive


Why should businesses have anything to do with my health insurance?



you know, i keep hitting the backspace button a lot in this question. the short answer is that because it is the best way to provide coverage to the majority of americans without forcing every company in the country to give their employees a raise so they can afford insurance without a drastic change in their lifestyle.

an individual does not have the spending or bargaining power of the company they work for. you or i could NEVER in a million years get the same rates/terms for insurance coverage that a company with 50 thousand employees could negotiate. and you combine that with tax benefits and incentives and basically you have a win-win situation.

as far as i can tell the reason we are forcing them is because there are companies out there taking advantage of the fact that people need jobs and will work without benefits to pay the rent and pray they don't get sick. those companies are in turn using millions of IRC loopholes to avoid paying taxes anyway - so lets give them a way to avoid taxes legitamately and keep americans insured and we all walk away feeling better.

the real answer is that its broken, but this is the first band-aid on the gash.



Daz, all this made sense before last night. It's a different ball game now if we're all to receive "Universal Healthcare". There are no more people without insurance. The government now makes sure they can all afford healthcare(?). Why should a business have any interaction or involvement whatsoever in this process?

It is broken, I agree with you there. But I don't think this is a band-aid.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:28 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:a company that doesn't provide health insurance these days.


Read the latter part of my old post Sarvis. Your statement was true before last night, but if we now all get "Universal Healthcare", why should companies have ANYTHING to do with it anymore? We just pay the standard(?) fee of $x that everyone else(?) has to pay and that's that. Well, if we make over 200k we have to pay more, but for us common folk the price would be the same(?). Why should my company have ANYTHING to do with it anymore?

You're both answering the question with circular logic. "Companies give you healthcare because they get tax break because they give you healthcare". Companies don't get a tax break for giving me auto insurance, home insurance, mortgage insurance, education, blah blah. If Johnny the Janitor can now get "free" healthcare from the government, why are companies still ridiculously involved in this?



Adriorn, your argument only makes sense if the answer is that you want the government to completely control the health care industry, which to be honest, i can sort of agree with - but ultimately i feel that you are fishing for some kind of response that you have fury ready to unleash upon. Basically, instead of asking us a question that you obviously have an answer for - why don't you just give us your opinion and stop trying to punish ours?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:31 pm

one popular theory is that this legislation is going to FORCE the private health care industry to play the game in a whole new way, and i believe that in 10-20 years when the HMO's realize that raping the sick and elderly is no longer the profitable fountain they have been drinking from for the last 30 years that they are going to try and offload their infrastructure on the government for much less than it would cost the government to build that infrastructure from the ground up.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:34 pm

My school employs 100+ employees. Every single year since I have been there we have had talks between the administration and faculty over what health insurance company to use because the current plan (an awesome company/plan) costs the school too much money. Every single year we as a faculty have said we wanted to keep the current plan, even if we as employees had to shell out more money, because the company/plan was that good.

My point is though, that the school was spending too much money on our insurance policies. It wasn't in their best interest to provide it because it was costing them money to do so. They did so by having us pay a little more and because they knew we were damn happy with the plan we had.

REGARDLESS OF ALL THAT, why the HELL would they have anything to do with all that? It just creates more bureaucratic crap for them as an institution to have to manage all that garbage every single year, every new employee, every change in policy premiums, etc.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:42 pm

a quick throwback to those polls - those polls reflect the current sentiment that americans are being fed at the moment - now that the battle is lost, the anti-reform marketing blitz is going to dry up, everyone is going to try and hop on the bandwagon, and the next batch of polls 6 months from now are going to say that anyone who opposed this bill won't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting re-elected without some serious, serious change in the way american opinion is manipulated.

how long did democrats stay in power the last time 'socialist' agendas cleared the political olympics? (its a trick question! i know the answer!) hint: 1954-1994 - and the republicans regained their footing then only by adopting a more moderate stance. 8 years of GWB has empowered the republicans and they have forgotten how to win an election on domestic issues, lets see how long it takes them this time around.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:44 pm

Daz wrote:Adriorn, your argument only makes sense if the answer is that you want the government to completely control the health care industry, which to be honest, i can sort of agree with - but ultimately i feel that you are fishing for some kind of response that you have fury ready to unleash upon. Basically, instead of asking us a question that you obviously have an answer for - why don't you just give us your opinion and stop trying to punish ours?


Hmm, no. I really wanted to know why companies should have any further interaction with my insurance if now we were all guaranteed it? There was no answer I was fishing for, nor an answer that I had.

And I wasn't trying to punish any opinion's, just tried to correct them if I thought they were faulty. I did notice however, that you have some anger towards HMOs, and possibly the Right. Why not try to reform HMOs and leave the rest as is? I'm perfectly happy with my PPO, and the amount of money I pay for it.

It was a discussion Daz, that's all.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01 pm

From whitehouse.gov: "Larger companies that offer coverage must automatically enroll any new eligible employees. Any company with 50 or more employees that does not offer coverage and whose employees access taxpayer supported health programs will be required to help offset the costs to the American taxpayer."

Apparently the fine is to help cover the people the employer is not covering. Personally, I think it's wrong to link health insurance to employment that way, but they removed the public option, never really considered single payer, etc. And everyone was whining about how they were going to pay for it... well, there's one way.
Last edited by Todrael on Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:03 pm

sorry - it being a toril forum you know how it goes, i was anticipating hostility.

i don't really have a hatred against the right, but i do have a strong disdain for how private HMO's make their money. i have close friends who work for CITNA and AETNA etc, and talking with them about their work bothers them as well as i. they hate the things they do, but our current job market doesn't exactly support taking a moral high ground and walking out on a stable income when you have children and a home to pay for.

as for the right, i am not a democrat, but the current GOP 'just say no' attitude to everything really gets on my nerves. for all their talk about us losing our rights and compromising our beliefs, they seem intent on ignoring the reality that it only matters to them if i adopt and push the same beliefs they hold. right now the right seems terrified that the majority of americans who are struggling because of the economic failure are going to turn to them to fix it. i could understand that fear, but i really wish they would at least admit that there are more than a few wealthy people who are wealthy at the cost of the homes, jobs and futures of many poor americans.

as for why business should be involved, it is just how i see the world as working. i mean technically speaking - why do they withhold taxes? why do they match contributions to our 401k? why do they withhold fica/ss/etc expenses from our paychecks? there are some practices where you just can't trust the poor to their own devices - many poor people would not pay their taxes, they would not report the fica/ss expenses, and they would not buy health care. the majority of americans can't balance a checkbook, much less be considered viably responsible for decisions that affect themselves so much. ultimately i think its cheaper to just mandate having businesses provide health care to working americans than to create an agency or system to take care of those who choose not to, but my leg hurts and i want to go take a break for a few so i'll just leave my ramblings here.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:05 pm

Todrael wrote:From whitehouse.gov: "Larger companies that offer coverage must automatically enroll any new eligible employees. Any company with 50 or more employees that does not offer coverage and whose employees access taxpayer supported health programs will be required to help offset the costs to the American taxpayer."

Apparently the fine is to help cover the people the employer is not covering. Personally, I think it's wrong to link health insurance to employment that way, but they removed the public option, never really considered single payer, etc., so whatever. And everyone was whining about how they were going to pay for it... well, there's one way.



for the record - the public option was removed to attempt to make peace with republicans. now that they have said 'i dont care, i dont want it' - don't be surprised to see it re-introduced now that the republican party has voted itself irrelevant.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:47 am

Daz wrote:as for why business should be involved, it is just how i see the world as working. i mean technically speaking - why do they withhold taxes? why do they match contributions to our 401k? why do they withhold fica/ss/etc expenses from our paychecks? there are some practices where you just can't trust the poor to their own devices - many poor people would not pay their taxes, they would not report the fica/ss expenses, and they would not buy health care. the majority of americans can't balance a checkbook, much less be considered viably responsible for decisions that affect themselves so much. ultimately i think its cheaper to just mandate having businesses provide health care to working americans than to create an agency or system to take care of those who choose not to, but my leg hurts and i want to go take a break for a few so i'll just leave my ramblings here.


Thing is Daz, I can use that same argument for why they should leave the insurance stuff as is, and just try to fix certain aspects of it. "Shrug, that's just how things work here". I don't want government putting their hands into my money, or especially my health, but if they are going to do it then at least do it right, not half-assed. That's really my point. Get businesses out of the healthcare connection, since they don't belong in it in the first place.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:09 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:but if they are going to do it then at least do it right, not half-assed.

I don't think that's how the US Congress works.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:28 am

Democrats shouldn’t expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber’s bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”

Republicans have taken their ball and gone home. That is, if you believe that there was ever a moment in this Congress when the Republicans weren't purposely and unilaterally obstructing the operation of the federal government.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:03 pm

There were a couple democrats that wouldn't agree to the public option in the senate, so lets not get too liberal with the truth.

--

Daz you attempt to speak rationally about the issues, but you're just as blinded by the liberal talking points as anyone else. In particular, I find your view of reigning in evil insurance companies who are making a profit very myopic. You understand how insurance works, if rates went up 46% but the profit margin remained stable at less than 5-7% why do you blame the insurance companies? Sure we can throw around big numbers like 120 million for the CEO of some insurance company, but 120 million of 500 billion is not the same thing as it is on 1 billion. Do you remember how they villified oil refiniries when oil was 150 a barrel... yet their profit margin is like 2-3%.

Record profits don't mean gouging and in both of these cases, I'd say the record profits are the result of increases in net business which is caused by increase in costs. If I sell a product for $10 and it costs me $9 to make it my 10% profit is $1. If the cost of materials goes to $28 and I sell it for $30, I just increased profit by 100%. This is what happened to oil and health insurance, the underlying costs continue to go up year after year making the product more expensive.

This healthcare reform bill does some good things, but you guys are crazy stupid if you think you can control healthcare costs by forcing health insurers to spend 85% on medical care. Thats a formula for ever increasing costs. You constrain your overhead costs to at most 15% meaning you have less staff to do things like file claims timely and implement changes that create new efficiencies. At the same time you create an incentive to inflate the cost of care to make 15% actually cover your overhead. And the final problem is that now theres a hell of a lot more money dedicated to healthcare, guaranteed by law. Every american has to buy healthcare, every insurance company has to spend 85% of its premiums on healthcare. What happens when there is more money available to spend that must be spent? It gets spent.

You thought wall street was a problem, 16-20% of our GDP is now permanently guarnateed to the healthcare lobby.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:43 pm

Just a guess, but maybe somewhere in the 2699 other pages of the bill there was something to do with cost controls.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:50 pm

kiryan wrote:Daz you attempt to speak rationally about the issues, but you're just as blinded by the liberal talking points as anyone else.

I'm just curious.

Kiryan, would you say that private insurance companies act justly and fairly to the people they cover, as a general rule?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:33 pm

Yes in general, statistically I think they are treating their customers fairly. I think they are just by my definition which has a capitalistic flavor to it, while you would most likely say unjust given a social justice view.

Denial of pre-existing conditions, absolutely just. Should you be able to go out have an auto accident then buy insurance to retroactively cover the damage to your car?

Raising of premiums, absolutely just. Premiums are being driven by healthcare costs, not by profit margins in most cases. Sure overhead can be an issue, but most overhead (and I have experience here) is in the unbelievable number of reports the state requires and the constantly medicare/medicaid rules and guidelines. Electronic systems don't change themselves and you seriously have no idea how many configurable options must be tweaked tested and worked around to make any given change work (this is my living hell right now).

Looking at the recent issues with 40% premium hikes, if you had a 100 customers and the 50 healthiest quit buying your product leaving the 50 unhealthiest... wouldn't you have to do something going forward? The solvency of the plan would be unsustainable if you had priced risk based on the 100 people 50 of them being moderately healthy. You obviously have to raise the rates. Maybe the missing product is the 10 year lock on healthcare rates, like we have with life insurance policies.

Targetting of high cost customers for intensive audits for the purpose of finding legal violations that allow them to retroactively end their coverage... Not that just... I don't like the targetting, but every business looks more intensely at it's highest expenses and looks for ways to save money. My problem is that they're willing to blindly collect the premium as long as its favorable then dump them when you start losing money. Even with cause (like lieing about smoking) this is not that great... Its pretty much the same situation where you can have your car insured at a value of $10,000, but then when you get into an accident they say its only worth $6,000 even though you've been paying premiums on 10k. I really feel screwed when that happens. On the other hand, if you lie about having 2 drunk driving offenses, and get into a wreck drunk... that's fraud. Maybe the company should be liable since they did write a policy and didn't do any due diligence, but individually you need to be criminally and financially liable for fraud. Now mind you, this isn't a "you lied about heart disease in your family" when its a your greatx5 grandpa died of a heart attack, but if your dad had a heart attack at 45 and you don't mention it, thats fraud and prevents insurers from pricing your risk correctly and you essentially are stealing from the company.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:39 pm

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Overblo ... 5mZQ--?x=0

Rubbish article. claims 5 fears of healthcare reform are overblown

1. The government will take over one sixth of the economy

His justification is basically there will be more money in healthcare because more people will have insurance and since theres no public option, its still in private hands. I fundamentally disagree, the control over healthcare through regulation and new committees will be unprecedented and it will amount to control over 1/6 or more of the economy.

2. The federal debt will explode

Basically he says the CBO said it will cost less therefore it will cost less. Pure poppy cock. For one, the CBO estimate assumes that congress will implement the "doctor fix" that they keep putting off every year. The failure to fix this alone will bust the so called healthcare reform savings.

The entitlements in this legislation become responsibilities of the federal government, so in times of recession, those obligations will still be valid. Government always has a rosy view of what the economy will do in the future, because they have no money now and must raise their outlook in order to justify new spending as being budget neutral. When the economy doesn't perform to their lofty expectations we get deficits.

Also, federal debt may not explode (it will) but what about all the "unfunded" responsibilities the bill puts on the states. Medicare/Medicaid is only partially funded by the feds, the states are responsible for the other portion. The feds put the rules on medicaid/medicare so if they were to say raise the eligibility to 100k, more people would be enrolled which would then cost states more money, money they may not have or planned to spend. Healthcare reform creates unfunded responsibilties for states. Ben Nelson was the only intelligent senator out there, the corn husker kick back makes the feds responsible for Nebraska's healthcare obligations. They should give that man a GD parade in Nebraska and change the name of all their first born.

3. Doctors will revolt

His entire argument is that while doctor polls say 33% will quit medicare/medicaid, doctors have already invested 12 years in becoming a doctor, what are they goign to do become tax accountants? He goes on to say doctors will probably have their salaries cut over time and that would be good to get people who want to be rich out of the profession.

Remember what I said about enslaving one group of people in the interests of serving the other? Speciailist doctors are next up to be villified (cardiologists and oncologists in particular). Then nurses with their $40 an hour for wiping asses and giving meds.

4. Business will suffer

No real comment although the money has to come from somewhere. Where that burden is shouldered will answer this question. I suspect small business will actually benefit. With a large company you get statistics of large numbers to work in your favor, when you're a small business, your premiums are based on the actual health of the people at your company. If one guy in a 25 man firm has a wife with cancer, you're rates are going through the roof.

5. Socalized medicine is on the way

Umm no, its here. the bill contains numerous expert panels to make recommendations which eventually over time become law. Give it 10 years and recommendations not to do breast cancer screenings will actually become law. But this is a good thing. If you are going to manage Americans like a herd of cows, you need to start lookign at statistics and quit crying about women who might've been saved if they had yearly mammograms in 10 million dollar open MRI machines. Its a simple formula of "women that would be saved" * "average economic output of a woman" - "cost of testing" * "number of all women". If that number is negative, you let them die. If its positive, you do the testing. Now that's letting science rule the day.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:11 am

Healthcare reform blah blah blah greater access blah blah blah more fairness blah blah blah.

Wait. My health insurance premium just went up what?
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Todrael » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:15 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Wait. My health insurance premium just went up what?

I give up. What?
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:51 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Healthcare reform blah blah blah greater access blah blah blah more fairness blah blah blah.

Wait. My health insurance premium just went up what?


not unless the republicans just passed a secret 'members only' legislation that i am not aware of.

have you even looked at the bill itself? where are you getting your information kiryan?

*****
Insured through work:
-no premium increase.
-no change of coverage, unless you want it.

Small Business Owner:
-NOT required to provide coverage
-Provides tax-credits to give small business the option to provide its employees with the same coverage as larger business, at the same prices they pay.
-Allow small businesses to 'pool' their resources to spread out the cost of coverage and provide greater coverage flexibility.
-NO TAX INCREASES to pay for coverage, in fact, tax credits will be given to offset the cost of providing coverage.

Medicare:
-No benefits will be cut.
-preventitive services such as cancer screening will be provided at no cost.
-Prescription prices go down.
-Quality of care will increase due to drastic improvements in the process by which information is shared and provided to medical professionals.

Uninsured:
-The ability to shop from all eligible providers.
-The ability to purchase out of state health coverage.
-Increased financial assistance to those who can not afford coverage, and an expanded definition of those eligible.

Self-Insured:
-If you purchase your own health coverage your premiums will decrease from 14-20 percent.
-Purchasing your own coverage makes you eligible for tax credits worth up to 60% of what you pay in premiums.
-No changes/increases to co-pays and deductibles for private insurance.
-If your provider spends too much of your payments towards salaries and overhead, they have to provide you a rebate.

General:
-all records will be kept electronically in a manner to quickly and efficiently exchange information between medical service providers for improved and expedited patient care while lowering the overhead of 'paper records'.
-streamlining and simplifying the paperwork process for filing claims and applications.
-coverage can no longer be rescinded AFTER diagnosis of a new medical condition
-cost of coverage can no longer be influenced by pre-existing conditions
-lifetime 'limits' on coverage are no longer allowed
-creates a public 'exchange' of providers so that individuals and business can choose the coverage they want, including out of state options to increase and encourage competitive pricing
-LIMITS on how much private health care providers can charge individuals for coverage.

How is it paid for?
-a .9% (not 9, look close - its a decimal) increase to the medical payroll tax of individual earners of over 200,000 per year (250k married) - and this is the one that really upsets the wealthy i think, because capital gains and interest dividends are considered taxable for this purpose.
-A tax on high-cost medical plans (as defined by cost in comparison to services provided in regards to the industry means).
-A small tax for those who CHOOSE to remain uninsured while within their means to accept coverage.
-A tax on business OVER 50 employees who CHOOSE to not provide the option of coverage to their employees.
-New taxes on the health care industry, pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers (not for individual use, such as hearing aids, eyeglasses, insulin, etc).
-Increase taxes on those who take non-health related withdrawals from health savings accounts.
-Penalties on health care providers who use a disproportionate amount of revenue for overhead costs.
****
i could get into how this is personal for me, with my father losing his home, his savings and his retirement when he was dropped from his coverage because of a 'filing inaccuracy' after he had a heart attack and his kidney failed. (salt in the wound, you would think 25+ years in the IUOE would mean someone would have his back, true colors i guess).

I could talk about how upsetting this issue is to a close friend of mine who lost his mother to HIV contracted through a routine medical procedure and watched her lose everything she had while she spent her dying months in a constant battle to get coverage from a plan that would no longer protect her, when all she wanted was to be able to leave something behind after passing away for her children before the medical expenses decimated her savings and spirits.

But I instead went out and scavenged through the garbage online to find actual facts about this bill. I will agree that this bill is not perfect, and even those who passed it admit that it will be in a constantly dynamic state for decades if not longer, but its a start.

those are not talking points, those are points taken from the bill itself. so tell me, when all is said and done - show me the evil.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:06 am

Jeez Daz. You must be the only person beside some poor Congressional staffers that have actually read this bill.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:11 am

kiryan wrote: If one guy in a 25 man firm has a wife with cancer, you're rates are going through the roof.

5. Socalized medicine is on the way...Give it 10 years and recommendations not to do breast cancer screenings will actually become law.



you haven't even looked at the bill, have you?

if one guy in a 25 man firm has a wife with cancer nothing will happen because effective 2011 providers are barred from basing price of coverage on your current health. yes, i know your argument that the fat guy at mcdonalds should pay more than the vegan nutritionist. doesn't it suck when you can't decide who should be treated equally and when?

the bill specifically encourages and incentivizes people to get yearly exams of all kinds and focuses on getting doctors to solve problems with minimal recurrent visits - solve the problems instead of telling them to constantly come back just so you can get a quick cash fix from their provider.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:15 am

Insurance companies by their very nature spread risk around. For instance life insurance. They hire smart people who are able to figure out what the odds are that any particular person will die at any particular age. I bought a $750,000 policy that I pay about $500 per year on. If I die this year, my wife gets $750,000 and I have paid about $1,000 in premiums so far. Big win for her, right? :) On the other hand, the vast likelihood (knock on wood) is that I won't die for another 30 or 40 years or so. If that happens, the insurance company has made money on me. Enough guys like me buying life insurance and the company makes some money at the end of the day, even when they have to pay out a claim once in a while to the family of some unlucky shlub who died too young. This is the essential nature of 'insurance'.

So how do the health insurance companies now manage risk? People are just going to pay the small tax for not buying insurance, and the second they get sick they will ask for, and be entitled to a health insurance policy. You can't be declined for a pre-existing conditions. The companies don't get paid during all the healthy years, but as soon as you get sick they are forced to insure you and pay for your expensive procedures. To me, this is the one part that just makes no sense. If I was the suspicious sort, I might suggest that this aspect of the bill is an attempt to destroy the private insurance companies (so that eventually we can have a single payer government program).
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:22 am

thanks corth - while i haven't read the entire text of the final version that crossed the desk i did actually download the pdf predecessors and read through that books, and i've scoured the internet for viewpoints and the one thing i notice is that almost unequivocally the people who are inciting opposal for this bill are using nothing but conjecture, speculation, doomsday scenarios and outright lies in order to saturate the social cloud with the belief that this bill somehow destroys our way of life.

there are very few arguments being provided by opponents of this legislation that can not be defeated simply by looking at the facts.

I have an aunt who got an email from her political organizations (she donates to republican causes) telling her that she was going to be cut off from medicare, have her prescription coverage completely removed and that she would be forced to leave the doctor she has gone to for years and will have to go to a new doctor that she has no choice in whatsoever.

every single fear she has is caused by a blatant and outright lie which serves no purpose but to further the induced rage of a republican party which destroyed itself and is now preparing to use their newfound SCOTUS-given right of corporate campaigning to reclaim control of the house and senate and pave the way for their chosen one to re-enter in 2012.

and yes, i think it is relevant that the supreme court granted corporations the right and powers to spend unrestricted and uncontrolled millions of dollars promoting political agendas during an election cycle. after reading how hard this bill hits private health care providers how much do you think they are going to spend to attempt to flood the media with fear of upcoming doom at a time when republican 'saviors' are up for election?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:23 am

Daz wrote:if one guy in a 25 man firm has a wife with cancer nothing will happen because effective 2011 providers are barred from basing price of coverage on your current health.



At the end of the day, someone pays for it. You want to increase the amount of healthcare services that are being provided to people? Then you are increasing the costs. So maybe rich people will shoulder most of the additional costs.. until they decide to move to tax havens to escape the burden (taking jobs and capital away from our economy while they're at it). Or perhaps we will print money to pay for it and the value of our savings will decrease due to inflation (so essentially, retirees who labor their whole life only to find their nest egg devalued shouldered that cost). Whatever scheme you come up with, that additional healthcare will be paid for.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:27 am

Corth wrote:Insurance companies by their very nature spread risk around. For instance life insurance. They hire smart people who are able to figure out what the odds are that any particular person will die at any particular age. I bought a $750,000 policy that I pay about $500 per year on. If I die this year, my wife gets $750,000 and I have paid about $1,000 in premiums so far. Big win for her, right? :) On the other hand, the vast likelihood (knock on wood) is that I won't die for another 30 or 40 years or so. If that happens, the insurance company has made money on me. Enough guys like me buying life insurance and the company makes some money at the end of the day, even when they have to pay out a claim once in a while to the family of some unlucky shlub who died too young. This is the essential nature of 'insurance'.

So how do the health insurance companies now manage risk? People are just going to pay the small tax for not buying insurance, and the second they get sick they will ask for, and be entitled to a health insurance policy. You can't be declined for a pre-existing conditions. The companies don't get paid during all the healthy years, but as soon as you get sick they are forced to insure you and pay for your expensive procedures. To me, this is the one part that just makes no sense. If I was the suspicious sort, I might suggest that this aspect of the bill is an attempt to destroy the private insurance companies (so that eventually we can have a single payer government program).


i don't know how much i agree Corth - that small tax amounts to 2% of your total earnings for the year, poor people who game the system the way you are talking about just aren't that forward thinking i believe. given that between expanded medicare coverage and increased incentives for employers to provide coverage i have to think that this not going to be nearly as big a problem as people seem to think.

however, if your biggest problem with the passage of this bill is something that can so easily be fixed or closed in the first year that we see people exploiting it, then i have to ask, do you think the rest of the bill merits the effort spent in passing it?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:35 am

So the tax is only 2% of income. Let's get rid of the first $30k or so, as they will get Medicare.

40k income = $800 per year tax
60k income = $1,200 per year tax
80k income = $1,600 per year tax
160k income = $3,200 per year tax
320k income = $6,400 per year tax

Ok so it seems pretty clear to me that for just about anyone making less then probably around $500k per year, it makes sense to simply pay the tax. Health insurance would be a lot more expensive.

Oh, but we can FIX the program easily, right? I guess by raising the tax to something that approximates the cost of healthcare. So for instance, someone making $40k per year would have to pay maybe.. 20% of income? And if you are making 60k, then around 15% of income? That would pretty much double the income tax these people pay. Are you prepared to do that?

Not sure how you are going to come up with an incentive system to keep these people from simply gaming the system and buying insurance only when they need it. And even if they could fix it, they wouldn't, because they want it broken to justify a more expansive healthcare scheme.
Last edited by Corth on Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:36 am

Corth wrote:
Daz wrote:if one guy in a 25 man firm has a wife with cancer nothing will happen because effective 2011 providers are barred from basing price of coverage on your current health.



At the end of the day, someone pays for it. You want to increase the amount of healthcare services that are being provided to people? Then you are increasing the costs. So maybe rich people will shoulder most of the additional costs.. until they decide to move to tax havens to escape the burden (taking jobs and capital away from our economy while they're at it). Or perhaps we will print money to pay for it and the value of our savings will decrease due to inflation (so essentially, retirees who labor their whole life only to find their nest egg devalued shouldered that cost). Whatever scheme you come up with, that additional healthcare will be paid for.



how much more do they pay for the poor uninsured people who still need medical coverage? it seems that you completely ignore the fact that we are shifting the expense of more than 30 million uninsured americans from the wealthy taxpayers and onto health care providers.

and i know the next response is with concern regarding to the solvence of those providers. The CEO of CITNA (or maybe it was AETNA, it doesnt really matter) one of those providers has made over 120 million dollars in the last five years, and he gets that money by denying coverage and protection to the people who have paid him for it.

its like a mafia boss who makes his living extorting protections from local residences, but then instead of protecting those people, he leaves them to be terrorized by a neighboring boss while partying with their money.

if they can't make money without hurting the people they are being paid to protect, then they need to change how they do business or how they make their money. and they sure as hell shouldn't flaunt how much they have taken from us with such extravagant and extraneous expenses and inflated overhead costs and then tell us they can't afford to give my dying grandmother the basic treatment she needs to die a dignified and peaceful death.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform

Postby Daz » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:41 am

Corth wrote:So the tax is only 2% of income. Let's get rid of the first $30k or so, as they will get Medicare.

40k income = $800 per year tax
60k income = $1,200 per year tax
80k income = $1,600 per year tax
160k income = $3,200 per year tax
320k income = $6,400 per year tax

Ok so it seems pretty clear to me that for just about anyone making less then probably around $500k per year, it makes sense to simply pay the tax. Health insurance would be a lot more expensive.

Oh, but we can FIX the program easily, right? I guess by raising the tax to something that approximates the cost of healthcare. So for instance, someone making $40k per year would have to pay maybe.. 20% of income? And if you are making 60k, then around 15% of income? That would pretty much double the income tax these people pay. Are you prepared to do that?

Not sure how you are going to come up with an incentive system to keep these people from simply gaming the system and buying insurance only when they need it. And even if they could fix it, they wouldn't, because they want it broken to justify a more expansive healthcare scheme.


if you are making 30 thousand or more a year, you aren't unemployed. if you aren't unemployed, then either a - your boss provides coverage, b - if he can't, the government will provide you the 'credits' needed to get it yourself.

not a single individual in your scenario will be forced to spend extravagant amounts on coverage because of a lack of options. explain to me how someone that is making that much money doesn't fall under one of the many options of coverage available to that person.


for the record, anyone attempting to manipulate this system to avoid responsibility will not be getting sympathy from me. triple the fines for all i care, i don't see a scenario where health care is not available to people who genuinely want it.


also - i'm not looking at your points as a knee-jerk emotional response, so i am assuming that you are simply trying to see the 'what could go wrong' - but i feel that its more of just an attempt to use a needle to poke holes in a tire. i think the bill is not nearly as flaccid as you seem to infer.
Last edited by Daz on Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests