Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

I don't really give a hoot what program is implemented but I want to see a system where everyone is covered no matter what their socio-economic position and I don't think anyone EVER should go bankrupt because of medical problems. I don't care if you think that's socialism or not. So I guess what I'm saying is... is this co-op thing supposed to cover everyone not already covered?

 

I don't see how it would. A mutual or co-op is not usually required to accept everyone in.

 

 

Cooperatives are not new to the insurance industry

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

Edited August 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

I don't really give a hoot what program is implemented but I want to see a system where everyone is covered no matter what their socio-economic position and I don't think anyone EVER should go bankrupt because of medical problems. I don't care if you think that's socialism or not. So I guess what I'm saying is... is this co-op thing supposed to cover everyone not already covered?

Well, under "socialism", people will just die while waiting for the care, so I guess it won't "bankrupt" them. /fearmongering but it will happen -- it happens now but it will happen much more prevelantly under "ObamaCare", whatever form that takes. It has to - services MUST be rationed moreso then they are now to get these great cost savings he's after.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Well, under "socialism", people will just die while waiting for the care, so I guess it won't "bankrupt" them. /fearmongering but it will happen -- it happens now but it will happen much more prevelantly under "ObamaCare", whatever form that takes. It has to - services MUST be rationed moreso then they are now to get these great cost savings he's after.

 

Meh, I don't think that has to be the case, but I'm going to stay out of this one. I've got no clue when it comes to this topic. I just believe you shouldn't receive far more or far superior care because of one's economic position. I don't believe in equality of condition, but without proper health care people simply don't have equality of opportunity to succeed. IMO.

[kapkomet]

Meh, I don't think that has to be the case, but I'm going to stay out of this one. I've got no clue when it comes to this topic. I just believe you shouldn't receive far more or far superior care because of one's economic position. I don't believe in equality of condition, but without proper health care people simply don't have equality of opportunity to succeed. IMO.

I understand your point - and there are ways to solve this. If our (especially current) government weren't so hell bent to make Democrats for life with all this entitlement s***, we would have a much different perspective on this whole thing. If you want serious health care reform, take the political crap out of it, quit paying for illegals, get real tort reform going, and change the regulations of the insurance industry. Problem solved. But will anyone listen to that? Of course not, because we have to try to get massive voting blocks out of all this legislation. That's more important to the parties then getting serious issues resolved.

[Balta1701]

I understand your point - and there are ways to solve this. If our (especially current) government weren't so hell bent to make Democrats for life with all this entitlement s***, we would have a much different perspective on this whole thing. If you want serious health care reform, take the political crap out of it, quit paying for illegals, get real tort reform going, and change the regulations of the insurance industry. Problem solved. But will anyone listen to that? Of course not, because we have to try to get massive voting blocks out of all this legislation. That's more important to the parties then getting serious issues resolved.

This has all been tried and tried and tried. The costs of illegals are minimal, they're usually too scared to go get health care because they'll be arrested. And heck, when they do need care it's usually in the emergency room anyway; it'd be cheaper to actually give them free insurance than to keep having them go to the ER. The places with serious tort reform show virtually no cost savings. And if you cut down on the regulation of the insurance industry, all that happens is they'll cover less. You might wind up with fewer people "uninsured" but you'll wind up with vastly more underinsured...everyone in the country will be happy with their insurance until they actually get sick and learn that the only thing that is covered is lupus. The insurance companies are the problem here.

[Balta1701]

That's where you and I differ. Costs are secondary to me. I value individual freedom more than costs. You have no problem turning your life over to the federal government. I do.

No, the difference is that you and I have totally different definitions of "Individual freedom".

 

For me, I don't see much freedom in a system where:

 

I have no choice of which insurer to use, it's chosen by my company

I have no choice of plans, they're offered by my company

I really don't get to choose a doctor; I get a list of 2 or 3 in-network places and I need a referral to go anywhere else.

If I lose my job, I have no ability to get insurance at all because the individual market is the worst of the worst, no one can get coverage there

My company really has no choice in insurers, since the markets for 80% of the country basically meet the definition of a monopoly

If I actually get sick, the insurance company does everything humanly possible to avoid spending money on me

 

There really is shockingly little "Individual freedom" in this system. The only freedom right now is the freedom for insurers to find creative new ways to drop people.

[Balta1701]

I don't really give a hoot what program is implemented but I want to see a system where everyone is covered no matter what their socio-economic position and I don't think anyone EVER should go bankrupt because of medical problems. I don't care if you think that's socialism or not. So I guess what I'm saying is... is this co-op thing supposed to cover everyone not already covered?

You can make a co-op system where everyone is covered, the problem with the co-op system concept is that it eliminates 2 of the key benefits of a larger public option. First, you eliminate the efficiency of having a large number of people covered in 1 system; you keep the broken system where every system has different forms, different rules, different paperwork, etc. Second, you eliminate the ability of a large organization to negotiate prices; you're always at a price disadvantage relative to a larger company because that company can negotiate better rates. Its also a lot more possible for a co-op to go all AIG on you if they're not set up with sufficient available funds or if they don't have a large enough risk pool.

 

If you mandate that people have to enter something, co-ops will take up a small slice, but you'll lose the cost-savings you'd get with any sort of public option. It's a tactic by the insurance companies basically to make sure that the 50 million people we're going to try to insure wind up with insurance through them, and thus they get that extra trillion dollars without having to really reform anything.

[mr_genius]

Second, you eliminate the ability of a large organization to negotiate prices; you're always at a price disadvantage relative to a larger company because that company can negotiate better rates. Its also a lot more possible for a co-op to go all AIG on you if they're not set up with sufficient available funds or if they don't have a large enough risk pool.

 

Mutual insurance companies are not always small - see State Farm Insurance. But anyways, how do you plan on forcing a co-op to accept everyone? The co-op would merely be filled with individuals the insurance companies have deemed too expensive. The co-op would have insane prices as their costs would be astronomical compared to a company that is more selective and charges high premiums for people they see as a risk; unless the government heavily subsidizes the organization. Now, if we have a situation where the government mandates a co-op to accept everyone, charge low rates, and gets a lot of government assistance: that would basically be a government run option that is merely named a mutual.

 

As we don't have a bill to go from, the nature of this 'compromise' is not known. If they want to cover everyone, they need to have healthy people paying into the system.

Edited August 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

As we don't have a bill to go from, the nature of this 'compromise' is not known. If they want to cover everyone, they need to have healthy people paying into the system.

Here's another point...they already have healthy people paying in to the system. We just spend that much money on the health care system. The amounts we spend are just ridiculous.

[mr_genius]

Here's another point...they already have healthy people paying in to the system. We just spend that much money on the health care system. The amounts we spend are just ridiculous.

 

Health care costs are definitely out of control.

[kapkomet]

No, the difference is that you and I have totally different definitions of "Individual freedom".

 

For me, I don't see much freedom in a system where:

 

I have no choice of which insurer to use, it's chosen by my company

I have no choice of plans, they're offered by my company

I really don't get to choose a doctor; I get a list of 2 or 3 in-network places and I need a referral to go anywhere else.

If I lose my job, I have no ability to get insurance at all because the individual market is the worst of the worst, no one can get coverage there

My company really has no choice in insurers, since the markets for 80% of the country basically meet the definition of a monopoly

If I actually get sick, the insurance company does everything humanly possible to avoid spending money on me

 

There really is shockingly little "Individual freedom" in this system. The only freedom right now is the freedom for insurers to find creative new ways to drop people.

This is the biggest FEAR MONGERING load of s*** I have seen for a while. You want to talk about crap? You always spew this stuff about the "right wing" and how the talking points are ridiculous, and you just spouted all the talking points from the other side that's BS.

 

I have no choice of which insurer to use, it's chosen by my company

Nope. You can CHOOSE to decline coverage. That's an individual choice. Frankly, the reason it's done this way is a government law that started in 1942. Deregulate it and have the individual get real choice.

 

I have no choice of plans, they're offered by my company

Again, a hyperbolic statement - if you want to get something for yourself, you can choose to do that, or not. That is the point of "cost vs. individual choice". You choose to be pissed off that it's so expensive and get bitter unless the government saves us all.

 

 

I really don't get to choose a doctor; I get a list of 2 or 3 in-network places and I need a referral to go anywhere else.

Same point said a different way. And most doctors under an HMO plan (which I don't like either but it is what it is) will do you pretty well, unless you want to find issues with the coverage, and obviously what we have sucks so bad that we have to go to a HMO system that isn't going to change a damn thing and in fact make it worse because you're going to interject a s***load of people into it by forcing the issue which will increase wait times. But now I'm fearmongering.

 

If I lose my job, I have no ability to get insurance at all because the individual market is the worst of the worst, no one can get coverage there

Sucks doesn't it? I'm there, but you can make the choice of what to do.

 

My company really has no choice in insurers, since the markets for 80% of the country basically meet the definition of a monopoly

Yea, ok. I guess Aetna, UHC, Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid (yes, I realize that these last two are different but they are an option), PHCS, BCBS, and a s***load more that I can't think of off the top of my head don't count for anything - they're a monopoly. The problem is they make money, and now they're evil. By the way, they aren't even close in terms of % profit of the most profitable companies. Not even close. But any profit is evil.

 

If I actually get sick, the insurance company does everything humanly possible to avoid spending money on me

That's the worst statement of them all. Wow, this is Kaperbolic ™ and then some. They just want to see you dead when you get sick. Yep! Insurance companies are death panels and they avoid paying anytime, anywhere.

 

I've used insurance more in the last calendar year and and most people get good responses from these people. It's just the way it is. But again, the system sucks, and we need to fix it the government way.

 

Now I'll go read your other post you made back to me.

 

[kapkomet]

This has all been tried and tried and tried. The costs of illegals are minimal, they're usually too scared to go get health care because they'll be arrested. And heck, when they do need care it's usually in the emergency room anyway; it'd be cheaper to actually give them free insurance than to keep having them go to the ER. The places with serious tort reform show virtually no cost savings. And if you cut down on the regulation of the insurance industry, all that happens is they'll cover less. You might wind up with fewer people "uninsured" but you'll wind up with vastly more underinsured...everyone in the country will be happy with their insurance until they actually get sick and learn that the only thing that is covered is lupus. The insurance companies are the problem here.

I didn't say cut down on regulation, I said change it. Big difference.

 

ER costs are the most costly of anything in our system. There's billions if not trillions written off that we won't even know because they have to treat everyone they see by law. They cannot turn people away. Again, "cost vs. individual choice".

 

[StrangeSox]

I didn't say cut down on regulation, I said change it. Big difference.

 

"Deregulate it and have the individual get real choice. "

 

[kapkomet]

"Deregulate it and have the individual get real choice. "

 

As I said, employers started offering insurance in 1942 - it was a part of unions, IIRC. And it's a law of some type that made this practice. Deregulate THAT part of it, and you need other reform of insurance law - and together you can get accomplished what you want without government takeover. No one is offering that, not even this bulls*** fake "compromise" of co-ops. This is a trojan horse - government health care in a different name to make it sound prettier. I called this months ago.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So let's see...if you lose your job and get sick you're SOL, oh well. Yeah, that's a workable system right there. Also nice to see you ignored the study I posted a while back showing that 80% of the country's health insurance markets are considered "Highly concentrated" and although there's different companies dominating in different regions they're really not competing with each other at the level of local markets, and you seem to have a problem with spending at the ER yet you think it's totally ok for people to go without insurance?

 

And no, it's still not possible to get insurance in the private market. I couldn't, I have bad knees. My wife couldn't either for other reasons. The only way anyone in my current family can get insurance is through an employer. No one would take either of us otherwise.

 

And yes, that last statement is Kaperbolic at some level. But let's actually go to the data. The insurance companies admitted under questioning, in a way that they tried to make it sound like a defense, that their recission rate, the rate at which people who are filing claims get canceled completely for various reasons, is 0.5%. If you do the math, that means that somewhere between 10% and 50% of the really expensive people are having their policies canceled when they need them. Over a 5 year period, that totaled over 20,000 people between just 3 insurance companies. Every one of those people is someone who was actually sick who had their policy canceled underneath them because they got sick.

[southsider2k5]

No, the difference is that you and I have totally different definitions of "Individual freedom".

 

For me, I don't see much freedom in a system where:

 

I have no choice of which insurer to use, it's chosen by my company

I have no choice of plans, they're offered by my company

I really don't get to choose a doctor; I get a list of 2 or 3 in-network places and I need a referral to go anywhere else.

If I lose my job, I have no ability to get insurance at all because the individual market is the worst of the worst, no one can get coverage there

My company really has no choice in insurers, since the markets for 80% of the country basically meet the definition of a monopoly

If I actually get sick, the insurance company does everything humanly possible to avoid spending money on me

 

There really is shockingly little "Individual freedom" in this system. The only freedom right now is the freedom for insurers to find creative new ways to drop people.

 

Look dude, I don't know where you got the idea that freedom means free from consequences, but it doesn't. Freedom of speech means that people have the ability to preach hate. Freedom of religion means that people are allowed to preach racism and sexism. Freedom of the press means that media outlets are able to compromise criminal investigations.

 

Individual freedom has never meant the best case scenario for everyone involved. It means each person is able to act in their own best interests. Just because the choices might not be ideal, doesn't mean you don't have freedoms.

[gatnom]

Look dude, I don't know where you got the idea that freedom means free from consequences, but it doesn't. Freedom of speech means that people have the ability to preach hate. Freedom of religion means that people are allowed to preach racism and sexism. Freedom of the press means that media outlets are able to compromise criminal investigations.

 

Individual freedom has never meant the best case scenario for everyone involved. It means each person is able to act in their own best interests. Just because the choices might not be ideal, doesn't mean you don't have freedoms.

 

So, hypothetically speaking, if the system proposed by democrats worked as well as they say it would, you would not want it based on personal freedom alone? I'm not saying it will, but it seems like the only positive to having that personal freedom is the ideal of having more freedom. You basically said yourself that it really makes no sense to exercise that freedom.

 

There are many freedoms that we do not have. Where do we draw the line?

[StrangeSox]

As I said, employers started offering insurance in 1942 - it was a part of unions, IIRC. And it's a law of some type that made this practice. Deregulate THAT part of it, and you need other reform of insurance law - and together you can get accomplished what you want without government takeover. No one is offering that, not even this bulls*** fake "compromise" of co-ops. This is a trojan horse - government health care in a different name to make it sound prettier. I called this months ago.

 

IIRC it was a way for employers to lure in employees with non-taxable benefits. I could be wrong, though.

[Texsox]

The reality of being poor and dying from a curable disease.

 

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/past-29...alonzo-ran.html

No insurance meant no chemotherapy until he was approved for aid. It also meant no choice.

 

Against doctors' advice, he would check out in search of another option at another hospital.

 

On his own two feet, weary as they were, Barrera would walk out and pile into a truck with his grandfather and grandmother, his surrogate mother.

 

The group would make its next stop at the next hospital, where Barrera would spend another two weeks.

 

Each hospital treated the uninsured Barrera's symptoms. But never the cancer that caused them.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The reality of being poor and dying from a curable disease.

 

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/past-29...alonzo-ran.html

well, dont tell the anti-reformers this story. They would have to find a way to explain how they are more worthy of that care than someone else (the base argument that universal care will create "lines" to get care). That's not a comfortable argument to make... saying I am more important than someone else.

[southsider2k5]

So, hypothetically speaking, if the system proposed by democrats worked as well as they say it would, you would not want it based on personal freedom alone? I'm not saying it will, but it seems like the only positive to having that personal freedom is the ideal of having more freedom. You basically said yourself that it really makes no sense to exercise that freedom.

 

There are many freedoms that we do not have. Where do we draw the line?

 

I never made any judgements about what freedoms were worth more than others. As a matter of a fact, I was the only one to mention the things that no one talks about.

[StrangeSox]

I never made any judgements about what freedoms were worth more than others. As a matter of a fact, I was the only one to mention the things that no one talks about.

 

Is it really freedom to be beholden to a private corporation instead of a government you at least have a vote in?

[Texsox]

Is it really freedom to be beholden to a private corporation instead of a government you at least have a vote in?

 

I would say no.

[vandy125]

well, dont tell the anti-reformers this story. They would have to find a way to explain how they are more worthy of that care than someone else (the base argument that universal care will create "lines" to get care). That's not a comfortable argument to make... saying I am more important than someone else.

 

I think that this story may show a clear case of a young person taking a big risk (without realizing it). Having a gap in coverage is something that a lot of young people do, and this is a pretty big risk as this guy found out. If his family is able to afford a $1000 monthly rent apartment by the hospital in addition to what they had before, they could have found a way to afford health insurance for the year that he was not covered. This is also why I think everyone should be required to have some sort of health insurance. It will remove these types of situations and will help drive down costs because those healthy, invincible young people will also need coverage. He and plenty his age are taking a big gamble and some are losing.

[Texsox]

I think that this story may show a clear case of a young person taking a big risk (without realizing it). Having a gap in coverage is something that a lot of young people do, and this is a pretty big risk as this guy found out. If his family is able to afford a $1000 monthly rent apartment by the hospital in addition to what they had before, they could have found a way to afford health insurance for the year that he was not covered. This is also why I think everyone should be required to have some sort of health insurance. It will remove these types of situations and will help drive down costs because those healthy, invincible young people will also need coverage. He and plenty his age are taking a big gamble and some are losing.

Actually, much of the apartment is being covered by fundraisers and donations that were done for the man.