Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2010 8:43:43 GMT -8
Forget the Obama plan. do you want insurance company to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions,or charge them so much they can not have insurance.
What do you do with the poor.?
The AMA wantes single payer?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 14, 2010 11:10:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 14, 2010 16:11:43 GMT -8
Just spent some time on the Indiana open enrollment site. Their CDHP, Consumer Driven Health Plans, are traditional 80/20 plans with a varying degree of financial exposure depending upon which plan you selected. They are affiliated with Blue Cross and you must stay in their "Network" otherwise it basically becomes a 60/40 plan. The main difference is that the CDHP plans have a much smaller upfront cost vs. a much larger back end cost. Each plan does have an annual maximum with the CDHP plans the largest. * The cost to the state is exactly the same for any of the plans, $13,390. * I would be interested in knowing what happens to the unused HSA amount at years end. I couldn't find mention of it. * I am disappointed that even with the 80/20 you have to 'stay in network' Medicare is much more flexable in allowing you to choose your physician. * Overall I would support something like this as it gives the consumer a choice. For those with continuing health problems the HMO would be a better financial choice though. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 15, 2010 7:39:53 GMT -8
Why didn't the Democrats support the ability to have plans cross state lines? Why don't the Democrats support tort reform to help lower costs? (Well, we all know the answer to that one.)
There are a lot of good ideas that the Democrats just dismissed out of hand either for political reasons or because they were beholden to certain groups (trial lawyers, for example). Those ideas would go a long way towards solving the current problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 8:50:57 GMT -8
Why didn't the Democrats support the ability to have plans cross state lines? Why don't the Democrats support tort reform to help lower costs? (Well, we all know the answer to that one.) There are a lot of good ideas that the Democrats just dismissed out of hand either for political reasons or because they were beholden to certain groups (trial lawyers, for example). Those ideas would go a long way towards solving the current problems. AMA's |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 15, 2010 8:56:44 GMT -8
Why didn't the Democrats support the ability to have plans cross state lines? Why don't the Democrats support tort reform to help lower costs? (Well, we all know the answer to that one.) There are a lot of good ideas that the Democrats just dismissed out of hand either for political reasons or because they were beholden to certain groups (trial lawyers, for example). Those ideas would go a long way towards solving the current problems. AMA's Please clarify. AMA's what? (By the way, for what it's worth, and I think it's worth consideration, the American Medical Association represents only about 20% of U.S. physicians.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 15, 2010 14:11:20 GMT -8
Why didn't the Democrats support the ability to have plans cross state lines? Why don't the Democrats support tort reform to help lower costs? (Well, we all know the answer to that one.) There are a lot of good ideas that the Democrats just dismissed out of hand either for political reasons or because they were beholden to certain groups (trial lawyers, for example). Those ideas would go a long way towards solving the current problems. AMA's Are you saying that Democrats are in the pockets of the AMA? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 15, 2010 15:43:59 GMT -8
Are you saying that Democrats are in the pockets of the AMA? Not pockets. They are in each others' skivvies. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 16, 2010 8:01:26 GMT -8
Are you saying that Democrats are in the pockets of the AMA? Not pockets. They are in each others' skivvies. Just making sure.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 16:24:39 GMT -8
Insurance is meant to indemnify the holder against something the may happen in the future. Since a pre-existing condition by definition is something that HAS ALREADY OCCURED, the question you're really asking is what scam can the smiley faced fascists come up with that will force other people to pay the bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 17, 2010 16:47:58 GMT -8
Insurance is meant to indemnify the holder against something the may happen in the future. Since a pre-existing condition by definition is something that HAS ALREADY OCCURED, the question you're really asking is what scam can the smiley faced fascists come up with that will force other people to pay the bill. Not exactly how I would have said it, but the key idea is that people other than themselves will be forced to pay. It is so easy to be altruistic and benevolent with other peoples money.  Don't get me wrong. I want better health care for more people at a better price. At present we are looking in the wrong places. I have always argued for "fee for service" rather than the "HMO" model, but I can see the case for the Kaiser Model. Let's start with real tort reform and chase down fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Dec 18, 2010 13:55:20 GMT -8
Insurance is meant to indemnify the holder against something the may happen in the future. Since a pre-existing condition by definition is something that HAS ALREADY OCCURED, the question you're really asking is what scam can the smiley faced fascists come up with that will force other people to pay the bill. Not exactly how I would have said it, but the key idea is that people other than themselves will be forced to pay. It is so easy to be altruistic and benevolent with other peoples money. Don't get me wrong. I want better health care for more people at a better price. At present we are looking in the wrong places. I have always argued for "fee for service" rather than the "HMO" model, but I can see the case for the Kaiser Model. Let's start with real tort reform and chase down fraud. It is the same old CRAP all over again. You are loudely proclaiming, "I've Got Mine, So Fug You!" for the world to hear. You can not deny it Win, because it is right their in your own typing on this page. Now, I am going to be extremely devious and ask you the following question: "Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?" We did it with education over a hundred years ago. Why is our health care program so far behind the times? The purpose of the question is to pressure you into acceptance of what is a reality in the rest of the industrialized world. The United States should be deeply ashamed that it has allowed so many millions of poor to die because they could not afford proper medical care. That is a form of genocide because the death by neglect that the Conservative Republicans are so "Fug You - Gleeful" about hits the people of color the most. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 18, 2010 16:43:47 GMT -8
Health care is very expensive. Government paid health care wouldn't be free. It would take money out of the economy and sink it into the black hole that is Government Bureaucracy Middle Management. The government is so inefficient that the overall costs for health care would go up. There is no way that government run/paid health care would be more cost efficient than a non-profit like Kaiser. Why? Because those in middle management have a personal stake in keeping costs higher to justify keeping their jobs. Eliminate waste and you eliminate jobs, and since those with the jobs are the ones managing the waste you see the catch-22.
Kaiser should be the model that the government ENCOURAGES. Let them sell plans across state lines. Enact SERIOUS tort reform to help them keep costs down. Encourage other health care providers to follow the same template that Kaiser uses.
I guaran-damn-tee you that Kaiser (and others like them) can do health care 1000 times better than the government can. They've been in the business for decades. They know what they're doing. Those in government don't.
As to this...
"Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?"
I would only say this, everyone should have access to health care. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should pay for those who don't want to pay for their own health insurance.
That falls right into one of the Republicans' ideas several years back - individual health care accounts for those who TRULY cannot afford health care. If they qualify give them a certain amount of money in an account that can ONLY be used to pay for health care. Either to HELP pay for an insurance plan annually or to be saved up and banked for catastrophic situations.
If people can go out and buy beer and HDTV's then they can buy health insurance. A lot of people who say they can't afford health insurance are lying to one extent or another. They can afford trips or high tech toys, but not health insurance? It's an issue of priority. Many people prioritize VERY poorly and don't manage their money well. That's not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to bail them out when they buy that HDTV rather than paying for health insurance (and a lot of people do that).
Those who are TRULY unable to pay anything for health care should get the most in the Health Savings Accounts, and those who have difficulty paying for it should get a little less. But those who can afford it and choose not to should have to face the consequences of their actions (large health care bills when they need treatment for injuries or illnesses).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Dec 20, 2010 8:27:12 GMT -8
Health care is very expensive. Government paid health care wouldn't be free. It would take money out of the economy and sink it into the black hole that is Government Bureaucracy Middle Management. The government is so inefficient that the overall costs for health care would go up. There is no way that government run/paid health care would be more cost efficient than a non-profit like Kaiser. Why? Because those in middle management have a personal stake in keeping costs higher to justify keeping their jobs. Eliminate waste and you eliminate jobs, and since those with the jobs are the ones managing the waste you see the catch-22. Kaiser should be the model that the government ENCOURAGES. Let them sell plans across state lines. Enact SERIOUS tort reform to help them keep costs down. Encourage other health care providers to follow the same template that Kaiser uses. I guaran-damn-tee you that Kaiser (and others like them) can do health care 1000 times better than the government can. They've been in the business for decades. They know what they're doing. Those in government don't. As to this... "Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?" I would only say this, everyone should have access to health care. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should pay for those who don't want to pay for their own health insurance. That falls right into one of the Republicans' ideas several years back - individual health care accounts for those who TRULY cannot afford health care. If they qualify give them a certain amount of money in an account that can ONLY be used to pay for health care. Either to HELP pay for an insurance plan annually or to be saved up and banked for catastrophic situations. If people can go out and buy beer and HDTV's then they can buy health insurance. A lot of people who say they can't afford health insurance are lying to one extent or another. They can afford trips or high tech toys, but not health insurance? It's an issue of priority. Many people prioritize VERY poorly and don't manage their money well. That's not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to bail them out when they buy that HDTV rather than paying for health insurance (and a lot of people do that). Those who are TRULY unable to pay anything for health care should get the most in the Health Savings Accounts, and those who have difficulty paying for it should get a little less. But those who can afford it and choose not to should have to face the consequences of their actions (large health care bills when they need treatment for injuries or illnesses). I do not see the bureaucracy that you think will come with providing basic and adequate health care for all Americans. Obama proposed using the health care providers already in place. Hence, the system as it is would just open up to the Thirty percent who have not been able to afford adequate health care. Remember, the US is totally devoid of a Middle Class. We are not talking about the old 1950's America. 85% of the money is in the hands of the upper 20 percent of our population and they have full health care. SIXTY percent of the population have only Five Percent of the wealth in America. That tremendous inequality brought on by the "I'VE GOT MINE, SO FUG YOU!" CONSERVATIVES HAS ROBBED THIS COUNTRY OF ITS TRUE WEALTH -- THE MIDDLE CLASS. Now, we have sixty percent of the people having to make choices between eating food or paying for medical care, but not having both at the same time. That ain't right. If HMO's want to bid for Government Health coverage for the American Poor, I am all in favor of that. Right now, we have too many people dying because they can not afford medical care on their low income. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 20, 2010 8:55:52 GMT -8
Not exactly how I would have said it, but the key idea is that people other than themselves will be forced to pay. It is so easy to be altruistic and benevolent with other peoples money. Don't get me wrong. I want better health care for more people at a better price. At present we are looking in the wrong places. I have always argued for "fee for service" rather than the "HMO" model, but I can see the case for the Kaiser Model. Let's start with real tort reform and chase down fraud. It is the same old CRAP all over again. You are loudely proclaiming, "I've Got Mine, So Fug You!" for the world to hear. You can not deny it Win, because it is right their in your own typing on this page. Now, I am going to be extremely devious and ask you the following question: "Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?" We did it with education over a hundred years ago. Why is our health care program so far behind the times? The purpose of the question is to pressure you into acceptance of what is a reality in the rest of the industrialized world. The United States should be deeply ashamed that it has allowed so many millions of poor to die because they could not afford proper medical care. That is a form of genocide because the death by neglect that the Conservative Republicans are so "Fug You - Gleeful" about hits the people of color the most. Joe, I will answer your question with a question based on what you have said. What makes you think that a Health Care guarantee based on the thinking that surrounded the Education Guarantee you cite would not result in the same decay in quality that has happened to Education? We continue to look in the wrong places for Health Care Improvement. Stop looking in the wrong other peoples pockets! Look at lawyers for a start. Real tort reform and fraud would be a place to start. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 20, 2010 13:24:39 GMT -8
It is the same old CRAP all over again. You are loudely proclaiming, "I've Got Mine, So Fug You!" for the world to hear. You can not deny it Win, because it is right their in your own typing on this page. Now, I am going to be extremely devious and ask you the following question: "Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?" We did it with education over a hundred years ago. Why is our health care program so far behind the times? The purpose of the question is to pressure you into acceptance of what is a reality in the rest of the industrialized world. The United States should be deeply ashamed that it has allowed so many millions of poor to die because they could not afford proper medical care. That is a form of genocide because the death by neglect that the Conservative Republicans are so "Fug You - Gleeful" about hits the people of color the most. Joe, I will answer your question with a question based on what you have said. What makes you think that a Health Care guarantee based on the thinking that surrounded the Education Guarantee you cite would not result in the same decay in quality that has happened to Education? We continue to look in the wrong places for Health Care Improvement. Stop looking in the wrong other peoples pockets! Look at lawyers for a start. Real tort reform and fraud would be a place to start. California and Texas have Tort Reform and that has not slowed the increase in insurance rates. The money the companies saved went into their pockets, not to lower rates or higher provider reimbursement. Try another tune. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 20, 2010 13:50:28 GMT -8
Joe, I will answer your question with a question based on what you have said. What makes you think that a Health Care guarantee based on the thinking that surrounded the Education Guarantee you cite would not result in the same decay in quality that has happened to Education? We continue to look in the wrong places for Health Care Improvement. Stop looking in the wrong other peoples pockets! Look at lawyers for a start. Real tort reform and fraud would be a place to start. California and Texas have Tort Reform and that has not slowed the increase in insurance rates. The money the companies saved went into their pockets, not to lower rates or higher provider reimbursement. Try another tune. Try posting a justification for your claim. It's questionable. tinyurl.com/yb2g5fl |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 20, 2010 16:27:55 GMT -8
Joe, I will answer your question with a question based on what you have said. What makes you think that a Health Care guarantee based on the thinking that surrounded the Education Guarantee you cite would not result in the same decay in quality that has happened to Education? We continue to look in the wrong places for Health Care Improvement. Stop looking in the wrong other peoples pockets! Look at lawyers for a start. Real tort reform and fraud would be a place to start. California and Texas have Tort Reform and that has not slowed the increase in insurance rates. The money the companies saved went into their pockets, not to lower rates or higher provider reimbursement. Try another tune. Does the word "real" and its meaning escape you? That is where we need to look. Tort reform with real teeth and aggressive fraud programs. Look at the link above and stop posting this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 21, 2010 6:59:30 GMT -8
Health care is very expensive. Government paid health care wouldn't be free. It would take money out of the economy and sink it into the black hole that is Government Bureaucracy Middle Management. The government is so inefficient that the overall costs for health care would go up. There is no way that government run/paid health care would be more cost efficient than a non-profit like Kaiser. Why? Because those in middle management have a personal stake in keeping costs higher to justify keeping their jobs. Eliminate waste and you eliminate jobs, and since those with the jobs are the ones managing the waste you see the catch-22. Kaiser should be the model that the government ENCOURAGES. Let them sell plans across state lines. Enact SERIOUS tort reform to help them keep costs down. Encourage other health care providers to follow the same template that Kaiser uses. I guaran-damn-tee you that Kaiser (and others like them) can do health care 1000 times better than the government can. They've been in the business for decades. They know what they're doing. Those in government don't. As to this... "Do you feel that in this Great Nation with all of our national wealth, that we should guarantee a minimum standard of health care for all citizens?" I would only say this, everyone should have access to health care. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should pay for those who don't want to pay for their own health insurance. That falls right into one of the Republicans' ideas several years back - individual health care accounts for those who TRULY cannot afford health care. If they qualify give them a certain amount of money in an account that can ONLY be used to pay for health care. Either to HELP pay for an insurance plan annually or to be saved up and banked for catastrophic situations. If people can go out and buy beer and HDTV's then they can buy health insurance. A lot of people who say they can't afford health insurance are lying to one extent or another. They can afford trips or high tech toys, but not health insurance? It's an issue of priority. Many people prioritize VERY poorly and don't manage their money well. That's not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to bail them out when they buy that HDTV rather than paying for health insurance (and a lot of people do that). Those who are TRULY unable to pay anything for health care should get the most in the Health Savings Accounts, and those who have difficulty paying for it should get a little less. But those who can afford it and choose not to should have to face the consequences of their actions (large health care bills when they need treatment for injuries or illnesses). I do not see the bureaucracy that you think will come with providing basic and adequate health care for all Americans. Obama proposed using the health care providers already in place. Hence, the system as it is would just open up to the Thirty percent who have not been able to afford adequate health care. Remember, the US is totally devoid of a Middle Class. We are not talking about the old 1950's America. The system that Obama set up will drive private insurers out of business in time. It may take a couple decades but it will happen. Secondarily, the government has never set up a new department or had a new benefit without having a huge bureaucracy. They will have to, "Administer," the money, and that department will grow and grow - just like every other department in government has. And the idea that there is no middle class is LUDICROUS. I'm in the middle class. My dad's in the middle class. Almost everyone I know is in the middle class. Anyone making over $40k and less than a quarter million is middle class. Joe, back in his, "New," schtick. Rinse and repeat. And it isn't true, either... |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 21, 2010 8:13:56 GMT -8
|
|
