| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2009 09:26:40 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
...Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage? |
I thought they did. The local Hospital that I interact with daily has case after case after case of uninsured that get treated there with the taxpayer picking up the tab. |
I keep hearing about these places where you can get care for free, i.e. if you're not insured. I for one haven't been to a place yet where they did not ask me for my insurance AND collected a copay BEFORE I even was allowed to sit in a waiting room.
If you're talking about emergency/first aid places, then please be aware that those places are not meant for healthcare. They will put the stitches on if you're brought in with a gaping wound etc. but they won't even look at you if you come in with a flu symptoms or with a tooth filling that needs replacement or with any of thousands of other issues insured people like me go to see the doctor.
Can you get a physical at the ER? This is one of the big things virtually all employers are pushing right now: exercise, and get checked early... this makes sense, as it discovers problems while they may still get treated. How's this going to happen with the ER model everyone points out. I wish people would stop pointing out that tax dollars pay for the free care in the US because that's just inaccurate. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:34:23 AM · #202 |
My take on all of it is this -- the wealthy can afford what they need. The bottom end of the fiscal spectrum already gets what they need.
It's those of us that are on the lower end of middle class that are going to get screwed either way -- if we don't have social/universal/public/whateveryouwannacall it healthcare, we are stuck with premiums, copays, etc and the potential of a devastating financial wipeout with a major crisis. If we end up with social healthcare, we can either pay for it with our taxes, or pay for it with our "paycheck," but in reality, it will probably be with both, and we will end up with less coverage for more money.
Nah, I'm not cynical or skeptical of the government at all. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:50:03 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
There must be a difference (or am I completely off in my understanding of the world) between healthcare and other money making machines. |
It's called being a regulated monopoly of an essential commodity/service. For example, your electric and water companies are (as a rule) not allowed to charge whatever the market will bear -- rates (and profits) are regulated by the governement so that these essential services are available to everyone.
Beacuse the government regulates (via licensing) who can provide medical services, it creates a monopolistic marketplace -- there is no "free market" in medical care, therefore it can't be regulated by "market forces" like other industries. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:55:29 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by karmat:
My take on all of it is this -- the wealthy can afford what they need. The bottom end of the fiscal spectrum already gets what they need.
It's those of us that are on the lower end of middle class that are going to get screwed either way -- if we don't have social/universal/public/whateveryouwannacall it healthcare, we are stuck with premiums, copays, etc and the potential of a devastating financial wipeout with a major crisis. If we end up with social healthcare, we can either pay for it with our taxes, or pay for it with our "paycheck," but in reality, it will probably be with both, and we will end up with less coverage for more money.
Nah, I'm not cynical or skeptical of the government at all. |
Not just the lower end of the middle class. Still not sure why something (govt healthcare) that works better in other countries is not being considered seriously here. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 09:56:21 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by karmat:
My take on all of it is this -- the wealthy can afford what they need. The bottom end of the fiscal spectrum already gets what they need.
It's those of us that are on the lower end of middle class that are going to get screwed either way -- if we don't have social/universal/public/whateveryouwannacall it healthcare, we are stuck with premiums, copays, etc and the potential of a devastating financial wipeout with a major crisis. If we end up with social healthcare, we can either pay for it with our taxes, or pay for it with our "paycheck," but in reality, it will probably be with both, and we will end up with less coverage for more money.
Nah, I'm not cynical or skeptical of the government at all. |
About right for the top and bottom end of the spectrum, I dare say, but in the case of the UK welfare state and the essentially centrally administrated health care her in Norway, the money you pay is the same. If you get less coverage for it, it's because you're healthy. It's not until you need it that the advantages kick in. And how. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:00:11 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
One thing I heard, and no I can't verify it at the moment (I'll try to find it later), is one of the options being floated to pay for this new healthcare plan is to tax the private (employer) healthcare benefits we currently receive as taxable income. |
AFAIK they are considering taxing benefits above a certain level. For example, the average employer health premium for a family of four is something like $13,000/year, but some executives* are known to have "super-duper" plans which cost upwards of $40,000 -- I think the plan would be to tax the "excess" $27,000.
If the employee derives a benefit (something of value which they'd otherwise have to pay for) from the employer-paid insurance, why shouldn't it be taxed?
*Yes, I believe from bailout recipients |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:11:02 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Still not sure why something (govt healthcare) that works better in other countries is not being considered seriously here. |
It represents change. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:14:27 AM · #208 |
Analysis: Some health care numbers don't tally
Some excerpts (bold emphasis added):
"Recent polls show increasing anxiety over federal budget deficits and the failure of Congress to figure out how to pay for health care overhaul.
Suggestions have ranged from taxes on soft drinks to a surcharge on wealthy individuals, from a tax on health insurance benefits paid by employers — opposed by Obama in last year's campaign — to a proposed tax on insurance companies. That, plus letting existing Bush tax cuts expire for wealthier Americans."
"During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" — although he also talked about raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 to pay for health care. On Sunday, Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, said the health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere and refused to rule out higher taxes on middle-income Americans."
Sounds like a typical "tax and spend" Democratic scenario. Can't wait for 2012!
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:31:29 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Still not sure why something (govt healthcare) that works better in other countries is not being considered seriously here. |
It represents change. |
Or as one participant stated to Sebelius and Specter today;
“I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no," she said. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:50:50 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
[i]"During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" — although he also talked about raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 to pay for health care." |
Be careful what you quote. Obama NEVER said "you" (as in "everyone") will not see your taxes increase, but "you" (as in "the vast majority of Americans"). The pre-scheduled expiration of Bush's tax cuts alone should make that much obvious. Any increases generally target the very top percentile of earners since that's where the money is concentrated anyway. That questionable old "tax and spend" refrain seems rather silly in light of how much we're already "taxed" by greed-induced gas prices, healthcare costs, banking fiascos (*choke*BofA was just fined for giving out $5.8B in performance bonuses in 2008*choke*) and credit card rates.
As an aside, it would be a really good idea to check healthcare talking points before debating them as actual policy. Many of the claims being pushed in anti-healthcare reform ads and blogs (Canadian-style reform, encouraging healthcare, the end of private insurance, etc.) are outright myth. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:59:48 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Still not sure why something (govt healthcare) that works better in other countries is not being considered seriously here. |
It represents change. |
Change. Yeah. Change would be terrific, but you don't want to concentrate on the right changes. Fix the government administered programs to function in an efficient, stream-lined manner so as to benefit everyone equally, THEN start blabbing your political nonsense about your 'change.' Until then, stay out of my pockets, please.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:03:07 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
...Why shouldn't those same tax dollars pay for our coverage? |
I thought they did. The local Hospital that I interact with daily has case after case after case of uninsured that get treated there with the taxpayer picking up the tab. |
I keep hearing about these places where you can get care for free, i.e. if you're not insured. I for one haven't been to a place yet where they did not ask me for my insurance AND collected a copay BEFORE I even was allowed to sit in a waiting room.
If you're talking about emergency/first aid places, then please be aware that those places are not meant for healthcare. They will put the stitches on if you're brought in with a gaping wound etc. but they won't even look at you if you come in with a flu symptoms or with a tooth filling that needs replacement or with any of thousands of other issues insured people like me go to see the doctor.
Can you get a physical at the ER? This is one of the big things virtually all employers are pushing right now: exercise, and get checked early... this makes sense, as it discovers problems while they may still get treated. How's this going to happen with the ER model everyone points out. I wish people would stop pointing out that tax dollars pay for the free care in the US because that's just inaccurate. |
Obama, June 15: Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that̢۪s reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums and higher health care costs.
From Scalvert's Fact Check link above.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:17:15 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by karmat:
If we end up with social healthcare, we can either pay for it with our taxes, or pay for it with our "paycheck," but in reality, it will probably be with both, and we will end up with less coverage for more money.
Nah, I'm not cynical or skeptical of the government at all. |
Well, the plan would be that folks in your tax bracket would not see a tax increase, unless it's offset by the elimination of any insurance premiums you're now paying. Overall, you should get equal or better coverage for less money.
Everyone alway talks about eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" in health care. You've been a teacher, right? How about if, to get paid, you had to fill out a billing form for each class, listing everything you covered with those students using a series of number codes. Not only that, but the form for each class must be submitted to a separate vice-principal, and each form is different and requires different code numbers, even for the same activities.
That is what you have with doctors and hospitals swamped with duplicative paperwork from all the different insurance companies. Isn't it conceivable that being able to submit one form to one insurer could just possibly be more efficient?
The principle underlying insurance is pooled risk -- everyone chips in a little to cover the few who end up having a problem. As soon as you introduce profit-oriented competition into the equation, there is an incentive for each company to "cherry-pick" as many health enrollees as possible, and eliminate anyone who might actually make a claim. The lowest overall (average) premium should be attained when the pool is as large as possible, such as the whole country.
Furthermore, a corporation (in the US) has a primary duty to its shareholders -- not its clients. They have a duty to deny as many claims as possible, and to collect the maximum in premiums.
I heard a recent news story about a Congressional hearing looking into an industry practice called recision. A woman, a retired teacher of thirty years experience, was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, and was scheduled for a double-mastectomy on Monday. On Friday, her insurance company called to say that her policy was cancelled and they would not be covering her surgery, because on her original application she had failed to note that some years previously she had visited a dermatologist regarding a case of acne. The hospital would not perform the surgery without a $32,000 "deposit."
When the three insurance company CEOs present were asked whether they would promise that they would only cancel/recind a policy in cases of intentional fraud (and not innocent and irrelevant errors or ommissions), they each responded "No sir." For this they get paid millions ... As one member of Congress remarked, "I don't know how these people can sleep at night."
So, are those the bureaucrats you want in charge of your health care decisions? Thank you, but I think it's time to try some other plan for a while ... even if it's provided by that same government you trust to protect the country. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:22:42 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
...stay out of my pockets, please. |
Our pockets are already being emptied with the highest healthcare expenses in the world. I'd rather take my chances with the farmer than stay in the henhouse with the foxes. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:32:02 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That is what you have with doctors and hospitals swamped with duplicative paperwork from all the different insurance companies. Isn't it conceivable that being able to submit one form to one insurer could just possibly be more efficient? |
Why not just fix that problem, and the others? Why a complete overhaul?
Please explain the logic. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:47:48 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Obama, June 15: Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that̢۪s reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums and higher health care costs.
From Scalvert's Fact Check link above. |
Again, each time an uninsured American steps foot into ER, is he/she always given an exam? I don't think so. Stop using this (you, Obama, everyone else) as a talking point as it is so incorrect it hurts the rational thinking process. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 12:01:24 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That is what you have with doctors and hospitals swamped with duplicative paperwork from all the different insurance companies. Isn't it conceivable that being able to submit one form to one insurer could just possibly be more efficient? |
Why not just fix that problem, and the others? Why a complete overhaul?
Please explain the logic. |
Fixing the problem involves the apparently logical but politically untenable position of eliminating the duplication -- i.e. go to a single-payer system which covers everyone for basic and necessary care.
Note that this doesn't solve all of the problems with health care, only reduces the current 30% administrative overhead to somewhere between 5-15%.
Controlling excessive pharmaceutical company profits, providing financial incentives for doctors to go into primary care, pediatrics, OB-GYN and geriatrics instead of specialties and subspecialties, malpractice insurance reform, etc. are all also necessary changes if we to bring our health care costs into line with those (typically "socialist") countries whose citizens enjoy better health and longer lives that in the US. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 12:21:40 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That is what you have with doctors and hospitals swamped with duplicative paperwork from all the different insurance companies. Isn't it conceivable that being able to submit one form to one insurer could just possibly be more efficient? |
Why not just fix that problem, and the others? Why a complete overhaul?
Please explain the logic. |
Fixing the problem involves the apparently logical but politically untenable position of eliminating the duplication -- i.e. go to a single-payer system which covers everyone for basic and necessary care.
Note that this doesn't solve all of the problems with health care, only reduces the current 30% administrative overhead to somewhere between 5-15%.
Controlling excessive pharmaceutical company profits, providing financial incentives for doctors to go into primary care, pediatrics, OB-GYN and geriatrics instead of specialties and subspecialties, malpractice insurance reform, etc. are all also necessary changes if we to bring our health care costs into line with those (typically "socialist") countries whose citizens enjoy better health and longer lives that in the US. |
With cash for clunkers and the stimulus bill as examples of how things are run, I'm very afraid of what will happen if congress and the senate ever pass a bill with a tax payer suplemented govt healthcare option. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:23:42 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Fixing the problem involves the apparently logical but politically untenable position of eliminating the duplication -- i.e. go to a single-payer system which covers everyone for basic and necessary care. |
The proposed reform would NOT be a government-run "single payer" system. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:40:30 PM · #220 |
| Right -- nobody (within the government) is proposing anything close to a single-payer system, I'm just saying that I find it the most important step towards a rational (not rationed) health care system. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 03:38:56 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Fixing the problem involves the apparently logical but politically untenable position of eliminating the duplication -- i.e. go to a single-payer system which covers everyone for basic and necessary care. |
The proposed reform would NOT be a government-run "single payer" system. |
How can for profit companies compete with a tax payer backed govt run plan that makes the rules? A plan that can lower the premium to what ever they want, operate in the red as long as they want, and just raise taxes or print money as needed.
As Obama said, it may take 10-20 years, but a govt plan would be the best way to lead to a single payer system.
Hear it here |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 04:42:05 PM · #222 |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 07:00:25 PM · #223 |
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Why in the hell would anybody want the Government running our health care? Just look at Medicare and Medicaid! At the rate Obama and friends are spending money (OUR money), we'll be lucky to bring home half of our pay check before it's all said and done.
Our health care system is not perfect, but there is no need to socialize and destroy it. If it was so damn bad, then why would doctors come from all over the world to practice in the U.S.? Why do people come from all over the world to receive treatment? Who has more advanced technology and more of it? If you had a choice between a top hospital in the U.S. and one in Cuba or another country, where would you choose to go?
Yes, improvements can be made, but I would prefer to be the one in charge, and I would rather it not be crammed down my throat by a certain deadline. There are other solutions out there, but Obama doesn't want to hear any of it. Have you noticed that everything has to be done RIGHT NOW or the world will fall apart? Why is that??
Thank you, Kevin Kitchens, for a link to the petition. I signed it several weeks ago and contacted my Congressman. Thank you, as well, for choosing my username in the recent challenge. I loved it! :) |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 07:53:41 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Why in the hell would anybody want the Government running our health care? Just look at Medicare and Medicaid! At the rate Obama and friends are spending money (OUR money), we'll be lucky to bring home half of our pay check before it's all said and done.
Our health care system is not perfect, but there is no need to socialize and destroy it. If it was so damn bad, then why would doctors come from all over the world to practice in the U.S.? Why do people come from all over the world to receive treatment? Who has more advanced technology and more of it? If you had a choice between a top hospital in the U.S. and one in Cuba or another country, where would you choose to go?
Yes, improvements can be made, but I would prefer to be the one in charge, and I would rather it not be crammed down my throat by a certain deadline. There are other solutions out there, but Obama doesn't want to hear any of it. Have you noticed that everything has to be done RIGHT NOW or the world will fall apart? Why is that??
Thank you, Kevin Kitchens, for a link to the petition. I signed it several weeks ago and contacted my Congressman. Thank you, as well, for choosing my username in the recent challenge. I loved it! :) |
Amazing how the evidence of superior government run healthcare in other countries has no influence over people with this opinion. Mind-boggling.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 08:02:59 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." |
Amazing how you forget that Reagan presided in the biggest increase in government spending (and deficits) in history ... broke the law to sell arms to Iran to raise money for Nicaraguan death squads, yes there's a real model of responsible government for you ...
Look there's one thing virtually everyone agrees on -- our "health care system" is a big mess. Who has been in charge of it for the past 30--40 years? Yep, private enterprise. Why would you hand over the keys to your yacht to the captain of the Titanic? |
|
