The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deuce on October 09, 2009, 04:51:19 PM
-
A few things are clear:
1) The status quo is unsustainable. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and insurance profits keep going up. We're the ones getting hurt.
2) Our administration is failing miserably to enact anything beneficial. Even the few good ideas they have get picked apart in committee by Senators who have been outright purchased by health insurance companies.
This will probably end up as incoherent rambling, but oh well, here's some ideas. It's a big topic!
-- Pre-existing conditions
You can't ban insurance companies from not covering these without an insurance mandate to offset the revenue loss. I can't come up with a way to make a mandate fair, so instead I'd open up Medicare to people who have been denied insurance due to an existing condition. They'd have to pay premiums to Medicare, as I'll discuss below.
-- Medicare improvements
One of Medicare's problems is the per-person costs are so high. The elderly are the most expensive to care for. I would try out one of the Senate ideas: make Medicare available to those under 65 to opt-in, but they'd have to pay premiums. Per-person costs would go down because you'd have some young, healthy people in the pool. I don't expect too many people would sign up, but if the premiums were even a little lower than private insurers, you'd probably get some much-needed revenue into the system to better care for the elderly. Worst case, nobody likes it and Medicare still just covers the elderly.
Another (probably one of the largest)problem is Medicare's poor oversight has led to large amounts of fraud. This needs to be curtailed. Additional personnel dedicated to fraud prevention would easily pay for themselves.
Boost the payouts for Medicare. Doctors aren't given much incentive to participate these days. Hopefully the above fraud prevention measures would pay for this.
-- Streamlined billing practices and patient records.
Every time you see a new doctor you have to give medical history from memory. This wastes time and causes errors. Electronic patient records and electronic billing methods save time and money, and improve the accuracy of the information your doctor has to work with. Make this mandatory.
-- Tort reform and per-procedure pay
I lump these two together because they have the same effect: unnecessary testing.
We're bleeding money and, more importantly, talent from the medical field in the form of malpractice insurance. Doctors spend absurd amounts of money to protect themselves from lawsuits and many of them give up entirely. To this end, doctors perform expensive, wasteful tests that they don't feel are necessary. Cap malpractice settlements and make the standard be "gross negligence" rather than "it didn't turn out like I wanted."
On the other side is the financial incentive. Doctors who perform more tests get paid more. We need to push the standard back towards salaries rather than per-procedure pay. Tax incentives for operating on salary instead would encourage this.
Combine the two and you have billions of dollars wasted on tests that the doctors, in their professional judgment, think are unnecessary.
-- Encouraging healthy behavior
Not often talked about is just how unhealthy Americans are. Our rates of heart disease and diabetes are astronomical, because we as a whole just don't eat right or exercise enough. Early education is key. Push more health education at an earlier age in our school system, and continue that education throughout their development. One class in fourth grade and another in eighth just isn't enough. Keep kids exercising in school. Gym class builds character! Good habits developed early are more likely to stick.
Unfortunately, a lot of this falls on the parents. You can't just ban every unhealthy food item or mandate people go jogging daily. Parents need to be encouraged to keep their kids eating healthy and exercising, but how do you do that? We can tax unhealthy products, but such taxes are invariably regressive. The poor are hit hardest when you tax cigarettes, soda, or cheeseburgers. On the other hand, you want to discourage eating nothing but cheeseburgers! Unhealthy people cost more to care for, it only seems fair to make them pay more, right? Salt and high fructose corn syrup go into everything these days. It is literally killing us.
So how do you curb that without disproportionally hurting the poor or taking away our right to choose?
-- Improving the free market
Competition breeds efficiency, and right now we hardly have any competition. 90% of the population is stuck with whatever their employer uses. Even if you can afford individual insurance, it's going to cost more for the same product, especially if you have any sort of bad medical history. Worse, we have little way of judging the quality of our insurance company until we NEED them. After years of paying premiums, you finally get sick only to be dumped immediately for some typo on a form you filled out long before you got sick. Insurance is nearly monopolized in some regions, so you might not have many choices no matter how much money you have.
A - Set up a simplified insurance exchange. Essentially an Orbitz.com of health insurance. Make it available to everyone, and any insurance company can advertise on it so long as they meet certain criteria. Only a few plans per company to minimize "spam," and the plans offered must offer standardized benefits so that people can compare apples to apples. **The regular market would still be available for the thousands of other plans and companies out there.** Also a requirement for joining the exchange: full disclosure on practices. Every denied claim or dropped policy must be tagged and public, so that people know who they're signing up with. Pacificare in California has a nearly 40% denial rate. Until recently, nobody had a clue. I bet their enrollment rate has dropped off after this came out!
B - Open up the insurance market across state lines. Competition, competition, competition. If those non-profit health insurance co-ops in Minnesota can operate better for less, they deserve a bigger share of the market.
C - Encourage startups. Right now the barrier to entry is enormous. I'd suggest tax breaks on startup loans for new companies.
-- Extend medicaid
Thousands of people die every year because they don't have insurance. People die for lack of money. It's unacceptable. I would extend medicaid to a larger segment of the population. Those who can afford insurance but choose not to get it shouldn't be rewarded, but many people just can't afford it after they buy food for their family. How would I pay for it? We've got to get money somewhere. The military budget is out of control thanks to a broken appropriations process. There are probably wasteful pork projects being worked on. Getting our asses out of Iraq would save a bundle, but that's not something we should rush. Our nuclear arsenal is due to be replaced, I'd say the vast majority of it is completely unnecessary. We can deliver nukes via aircraft, cruise missile, ICBM, artillery shell, or submarine. Surely at least one of these options is redundant, and we have hundreds of the city-crushing ICBMs. Maybe dozens would do?
The point is, there are places in the military we could trim and not endanger the safety of America or its troops. Same goes for nearly every other government department. TSA, anyone?
-- Fair practices for insurance companies
Stricter regulations on when an insurance company can drop your policy or deny a claim. "Failure to disclose past medical history" is a catch-all for big insurance. Hey, you didn't tell us that you had frequent headaches six years ago, we're not covering that kidney transplant! Once an illness starts, the insurance company shouldn't be able to drop your policy. Period. So long as you pay your premium (which gets frozen the moment you get sick). They had their chance to "review your records." They just didn't because at the time you were profitable.
-- Death panels
I've never been so disappointed in the GOP for not only failing to refute this nonsense, but for actually promoting it.
People should talk to doctors at the end of their lives to make a plan for their wishes to be met. Do you want to be kept alive or do you want your pain to be shorter? If you don't have a written order, this horrible decision is dumped on your family, your doctor, or even the hospital administration. Doctors should be paid for this consultation. There was a clause in HR-3200 that would allow doctors to bill Medicare for such a consult, and then some moron called it a death panel. Now that clause is gone. Sickening. What nobody mentions is that a Republican senator co-sponsored a nearly identical bill in 2007. Every state has an end-of-life directive provision. If you write the order, it must be followed. That's the opposite of government deciding how your life ends!
-- Prescription drugs
We pay too much. We're allegedly shouldering the "R&D" costs, but pharmaceutical companies have a way of lumping marketing into R&D. They also don't like to mention that the bulk of the research - finding what drug works and what doesn't - is actually funded publicly already. Pharma companies just do the finishing touches. They've also got shady practices like rebranding identical drugs for a new use to extend their patent beyond its expiration, or making minor variations in formula and calling it something new.
One reason Canada and the UK pay so much less is that they have the bargaining power of a market covering 100% of the population. If you want to sell drugs at all in Canada, you have to negotiate with an extremely powerful body. If you aren't willing to negotiate, your competitors would be jumping at the chance to secure such a huge customer base.
Collective bargaining would improve our odds. Allow insurance companies to enter joint negotiations on behalf of their collective insurance pools, perhaps? Allow them to join in with Medicare's negotiations? I don't know enough about the process to say something firm.
I await the inevitable serious flaws to be pointed out. What are some of your ideas?
-
1) Shut down the medicare/medicaid system immediately.
2) Tort reform, to include "Loser Pays" principle and definite limits on "punitive" damages.
3) Remove legal restrictions on purchasing of Health Insurance outside of state lines.
4) Require proof of nationality at time of treatment. Medical costs incurred in the treatment of foreign nationals and unpaid longer than 90 days will be deducted from any and all foreign aid the home nation(s) of said foreign nationals receives.
A SCOTUS decision stating that Congress has no ****ing business imposing itself in the Patient/Doctor or Patient/Doctor/Insurance Provider relationship ever again would be nice as well.
You asked.
-
insurance profits keep going up
Excuse me. When did "profits" become a dirty word? If you had stock in insurance companies, would you prefer "loses"?
-
Excuse me. When did "profits" become a dirty word? If you had stock in insurance companies, would you prefer "loses"?
Insurance company profits have for the most part declined in the last couple of years due to the economic collapse. I'm also pretty sure that their profit margin is no higher than many other business. I'd like to see the profit margins for some of the more prestigious law firms in the US.
-
Insurance company profits have for the most part declined in the last couple of years due to the economic collapse. I'm also pretty sure that their profit margin is no higher than many other business. I'd like to see the profit margins for some of the more prestigious law firms in the US.
Yeah, the largest publicly traded companies profist shrank by 400 million.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack-obama/health-insurance-company-turned-profit-not-rec/
So how are those profits growing?
Deuce, get your shit straight before you start spouting the liberal meme.
-
Yeah, the largest publicly traded companies profist shrank by 400 million.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack-obama/health-insurance-company-turned-profit-not-rec/
So how are those profits growing?
Deuce, get your shit straight before you start spouting the liberal meme.
I didn't even need to go check that, because I remembered it from one of 0Bama's speeches when he was proved to be lying. (I know that is almost every speech)
-
1) Shut down the medicare/medicaid system immediately.
2) Tort reform, to include "Loser Pays" principle and definite limits on "punitive" damages.
3) Remove legal restrictions on purchasing of Health Insurance outside of state lines.
4) Require proof of nationality at time of treatment. Medical costs incurred in the treatment of foreign nationals and unpaid longer than 90 days will be deducted from any and all foreign aid the home nation(s) of said foreign nationals receives.
A SCOTUS decision stating that Congress has no ****ing business imposing itself in the Patient/Doctor or Patient/Doctor/Insurance Provider relationship ever again would be nice as well.
You asked.
5) remove the fed/state coverage mandates. MN has 63, including drug addiction in patient. UT has 4. Wonder where insurnace is cheaper?
6) Stop diluting the COTUS by saying that insurance is a right. It's not.
-
President Obama: There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits
LIE!!!
The industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin. I deal in facts and figures half-breed boy, not rhetoric that most brain dead americans suck up on the network evening news.
SOURCE PLUS GRAPH (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html)
Obama is a blatant liar pandering to ignorant, mentally inferior people who should'nt be allowed to vote.
-
Since real unemployment is approaching 18%, and since most all health insurance premiums are employer/employee generated, doesn't it take all the balls in the world to lie and say insurance company "profits" are "up"? Or does someone have to be really stupid to actually believe it and repeat it as if it is substantiated fact?
I had "record profits" this year, too. Record lows. Remember, when a liberal says something like "record profits" remember that a "record" can be set two ways, and then assume the liberal is trying to get you to believe something that isn't the truth.
-
I forgot to answer the original question:
Get the federal government out of it. Completely.
Stop sending tax dollars to Washington. Send tax dollars to the states and let the states figure out how much Washington needs to scrape by....barely.
Stop sending tax money yo criminal enterprises like ACORN. Send it to Christ based charities instead, sincethey are the ones who truly take care of the folks in need.
-
A few things are clear:
1) The status quo is unsustainable. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and insurance profits keep going up. We're the ones getting hurt................
I'd just love to see proof of that one.
-
) Tort reform, to include "Loser Pays" principle and definite limits on "punitive" damages.
I would hope that would include the losing lawyer, not just the smuck that brought the law suit.
-
I would hope that would include the losing lawyer, not just the smuck that brought the law suit.
As Emperor of America, in my benevolence I could see making it so the loser is paying, and the losing attorney is paying the attorney's fees.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
-
LIE!!!
The industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin. I deal in facts and figures half-breed boy, not rhetoric that most brain dead americans suck up on the network evening news.
SOURCE PLUS GRAPH (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html)
Obama is a blatant liar pandering to ignorant, mentally inferior people who should'nt be allowed to vote.
Thanks for posting this, Marine.
-
I saw on Fox today where 3 of the largest insurance companies had a less than a 5% profit margin.
That is hardly an outrageous amount.
-
As Emperor of America, in my benevolence I could see making it so the loser is paying, and the losing attorney is paying the attorney's fees.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
As a Marine. I challenge that. :saluteaf: Lets get in on. Gimme your best. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw&feature=PlayList&p=C7A048D29D672D3C
-
4) Require proof of nationality at time of treatment. Medical costs incurred in the treatment of foreign nationals and unpaid longer than 90 days will be deducted from any and all foreign aid the home nation(s) of said foreign nationals receives.
What about situations in the ER where identity is not immediately obvious? If I get mugged and stabbed, my wallet's gone, how are they to know whether or not I'm a citizen? We're also stepping into the morally shady area of how do you handle someone who is clearly dying but you know is not a citizen and will not be able to pay for their care? I support that idea for non-emergency care, but when people are dying you really do have to treat them.
You guys are right about insurance profits - they're down with the rest of the economy. 5% on a trillion dollar industry is still a hefty chunk of change, though. Moreso than profit margin, insurance companies need to get their overhead under control.
http://masscare.org/health-care-costs/overhead-costs-of-health-care/
(note: this site is promoting single-payer apparently, but the numbers are still valid. the point is they aren't running as efficiently as they could be)
Someone asked about a source for skyrocketing healthcare costs. Health insurance premiums and healthcare costs in general have outpaced inflation by a large margin. We're up to 16% of GDP, far more than any other country.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Shut down medicare/medicaid system immediately
67%+ of senior citizens and probably every poor family receiving Medicaid disagree with you. People would literally die if you did that.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2009/20090512-SenCitLikeMedicare.htm
2) Tort reform, to include "Loser Pays" principle and definite limits on "punitive" damages.
Agreed.
-
What is this big deal about "pre-existing" conditions?
I don't think pre-existing conditions should have to be covered at all.
It's life; life treats all of us differently, and we are to accept, adapt, and move on the best we can.
I was born deaf, absent both ears (the absence covered up by my wearing my hair a little bit longer than most males do).
I suppose that's a pre-existing condition.
Do I have the chutzpah to demand that other people make me whole?
No way, especially since I don't consider myself less than whole.
People are born to be tall, to be short; people are born to be this, or to be that.
Medical insurance should cover accidents and other injuries, and later-developing ailments, and infants born with pre-existing conditions (such as surgery to repair a cleft palate, for example), but in general, people with pre-existing conditions are morally and socially obligated to deal with it the best they can, the best they know how.
It builds character.
-
Medical insurance should cover accidents and other injuries, and later-developing ailments, and infants born with pre-existing conditions (such as surgery to repair a cleft palate, for example), but in general, people with pre-existing conditions are morally and socially obligated to deal with it the best they can, the best they know how.
It builds character.
I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included. If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not. The latter is more expensive too....
-
I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included. If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not. The latter is more expensive too....
The chasm here seems to be in our differing definitions of "pre-existing conditions," and perhaps some sort of common definition should be agreed upon here.
-
What is this big deal about "pre-existing" conditions?
I don't think pre-existing conditions should have to be covered at all.
Medical insurance should cover accidents and other injuries, and later-developing ailments, and infants born with pre-existing conditions (such as surgery to repair a cleft palate, for example), but in general, people with pre-existing conditions are morally and socially obligated to deal with it the best they can, the best they know how.
These statements are somewhat contradictory. Most of the time the pre-existing condition is an injury or late-developing illness. Sometimes these conditions are ongoing and expensive, to the point of easily overwhelming and bankrupting a person. Then what? Toss them out on the street to fend for themselves, permanently crippled or even dying due to lack of treatment?
To clarify: A pre-existing condition is anything that an insurance policy would usually pay for, but they don't because you had it before you signed on with them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
Many of these people can't just "deal with it."
Unfortunately totally excluding pre-existing condition denials pretty much requires a mandate, which I don't support. Other options must be pursued.
-
I'd like to see more preventative procedures paid for by insurance.
Most women who have had "issues" with their breasts...would much prefer to have a "scoop and stuff" rather than wait until they have cancer and maybe qualify for reconstructive surgery.
I know 2 women who have both had it done, and had to pay for it out of pocket.
I've had 3 lumpectomies and God knows how many mammograms and ultrasounds for checks and rechecks for over 20 years. Went without insurance for 5 years because I was considered "uninsurable" because I had "potential pre-cancer cells".
It would be thousands of dollars cheaper to just pay for a scoop and stuff.....
It used to be possible to get a hysterectomy if the woman was wanting one ( and not going to a GYN in a Catholic hospital ::) ) and the doctor was agreeable. Now it needs oodles of documentation first, often not possible until really bad things occur...like stage 4 cancer.
The chances of a woman ending up with cancer either in her breasts, or those "connecting parts" that we really don't want to deal with once we are through having children....are incredibly high. Most women are quite in tune with their bodies, and know when something is just not right.
Let us have a voice on our health care...in the long run...it would save billions in health care!!!
-----------sorry for the rant.... :(
-
Tort reform.
Get rid of the last bondoggle the Dems gave us to try and "fix" healthcare...the HMO's.
-
No healthcare reform without tort reform. Any plan without that is DOA, IMHO.
-
We have the best healthcare in the world no need to change it.
Change in the health insurance area needed
-
No healthcare reform without tort reform. Any plan without that is DOA, IMHO.
Seeing that this echoes what Tx said, I'll say, "What the two of you said."
-
I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included. If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not. The latter is more expensive too....
I agree with you 100%, the biggest pre-existing condition denial used to be pregnancy -- find out you are pregnant, you get laid off, good luck finding another job right away but if you do then no coverage. That went away with hard mandates for pregnancy coverage, and protections from lay offs, etc.
Your example is what happens too frequently now. Pre-existing condition denials are a serious problem.
-
I agree with you 100%, the biggest pre-existing condition denial used to be pregnancy -- find out you are pregnant, you get laid off, good luck finding another job right away but if you do then no coverage. That went away with hard mandates for pregnancy coverage, and protections from lay offs, etc.
Your example is what happens too frequently now. Pre-existing condition denials are a serious problem.
Well now, it was late last night when I posted.
As for "pre-existing conditions," I think we're talking oranges and tangerines here.
The definition of "pre-existing conditions."
Close, but not quite the same.
I'll get back to this tonight to explain myself better; it's a busy day in real life.
-
Pre-existing conditions. This might help. Not really the source I would have wanted, but on a quick look this came up, and this is a standard definition.
If you get your insurance coverage through your job, federal law governing pre-existing conditions applies. Your insurer will be permitted to "look-back" to see if you received any medical attention or diagnosis during the six-month period immediately preceding your enrollment. The insurer will use this information to determine what medical conditions you already had when you enrolled. So if you received medical care for a particular condition more than six months prior to enrollment, then that condition is not pre-existing under federal law.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/glossary/g/preex1.htm
-
I'm torn on the pre-existing contitions conversation. I think it makes sense that an insurance company charge more to comver someone with pre-existing condition that will cost the ins. money. Car ins. companies do it, why shouldn't health insurance companies?
I say this as a person who is on a maintenace drug, who has had Cancer, who's father had kidney transplant, 2 triple bypasses, angeoplasty (sp) and passed away waiting for a heart transplant. Makes no sense to me that I, as a person who is supposed to get a cancer check every 6 months, would have to pay more for insurance than someone who has never had an illness.
As for profit margins... I'm incredibly - INCREDIBLY - sick and tired of people complaining about insurance company profits. As tired as I am about oil company profits or any other successful industry. 5% is about 1/2 the "avg" profit margin. I'm very tired of people saying "well... the industry is sooooo huge that 5% is a ton of money and still too much!!!" BULLSHIT. If the industry is a Trillion dollar industry, the liabilities/risk that the ins company has to manage is $950 BILLION. Please don't sit here an tell me that the other side of teh balance sheet doesn't matter... That's myopic, foolish, and just dumb.
Want to talk about profits? How much does the Gov't make in "profits" off of these highly regulated companies? They make more than the oil companies - WAY more. How much do they benefit from Insurance company profits? Guess what - by definition of our income tax rules, it's almost as equal as to the insurance company profits. In MN, the corp tax is a combined 45% +-. So if United Health has a profit of $5B, almost $2.5B is going to Fed/state. Seems no one wants to talk about THAT now, eh?
-
We have the nest healthcare in the world no need to change it.
Change in the health insurance area needed
How do you define best?
In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.
You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.
-
Pre-existing conditions. This might help. Not really the source I would have wanted, but on a quick look this came up, and this is a standard definition.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/glossary/g/preex1.htm
That's where I made my first mistake; I should have pointed out the diffeence between the usual and customary definition of "pre-existing conditions" as used in regards to insurance, and what I was thinking of, simply the way a person comes into this world, and I was trying to look at it from the latter definition.
Like I said, it was late at night.....
Under the more common definition, I have three "pre-existing conditions;" deafness, a propensity towards WAY too many respiratory ailments, and melanoma. It's been a very long time ago now, but I have been refused medical insurance on the second one.
And again, I must point out that I am in a different situation than nearly all others here at conservativecave; I am a single male with no spouse or dependents, and so have a greater degree of freedom (my actions affect only myself) than they do; I can take risks no sane person with a spouse and dependents dare take.
As everyone knows, while I am enthusiastic about things such as cochlear implants and other ear-reconstructon for people who once had hearing, but then lost some, or all, of it, I am "thumbs down" on money being spent on the same thngs for people who were born hard of hearing or deaf.
It seems to me there is way too much money spent on trying to correct "mistakes" of nature. I find no fault, no fault at all, with correcting a cleft palate on an infant, or repairing the hole in the heart of an infant, but I'm talking about something different here; non-life-threatening conditions such as being born blind or deaf or sexual confusion or the wrong color of skin or too big of a nose.
-
That's where I made my first mistake; I should have pointed out the diffeence between the usual and customary definition of "pre-existing conditions" as used in regards to insurance, and what I was thinking of, simply the way a person comes into this world, and I was trying to look at it from the latter definition.
Like I said, it was late at night.....
Under the more common definition, I have three "pre-existing conditions;" deafness, a propensity towards WAY too many respiratory ailments, and melanoma. It's been a very long time ago now, but I have been refused medical insurance on the second one.
And again, I must point out that I am in a different situation than nearly all others here at conservativecave; I am a single male with no spouse or dependents, and so have a greater degree of freedom (my actions affect only myself) than they do; I can take risks no sane person with a spouse and dependents dare take.
As everyone knows, while I am enthusiastic about things such as cochlear implants and other ear-reconstructon for people who once had hearing, but then lost some, or all, of it, I am "thumbs down" on money being spent on the same thngs for people who were born hard of hearing or deaf.
It seems to me there is way too much money spent on trying to correct "mistakes" of nature. I find no fault, no fault at all, with correcting a cleft palate on an infant, or repairing the hole in the heart of an infant, but I'm talking about something different here; non-life-threatening conditions such as being born blind or deaf or sexual confusion or the wrong color of skin or too big of a nose.
The non-life-threatening conditions you speak of are not covered by health insurance. If an individual wants to "fix" their skin color or nose, they can spend the money to do so. That's not a choice I would deny them.
-
How do you define best?
In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.
You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.
I hope you realize this is also untrue. Other nations count so many of their healthcare stats differently, there is really no comparison without infinite details. Just for one example, in most of the world, an infant born before 22 weeks is considered a miscarriage and there is no attempt to keep that child alive. In the US, the attempt is made and, if it fails, it is counted under "Infant Mortality." Mortality of mothers is also counted differently, in the US, any maternal death counts as such until a year after the birth (or abortion, if that fact is known), while most countries stop the count at either 4 or 6 months. The "worst healthcare" myth is just that...a myth created by comparing apples and oranges.
In point of fact, Canada sends most of their preemies to the US for birth. This is because the US saves more than Canada, and our hospitals have more Intensive Care nurseries and better trained personnel.
-
Plumber with shattered arm left horrifically bent out of shape has operation 'cancelled four times'
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218927/Plumber-shattered-arm-left-horrifically-bent-shape-operation-cancelled-times.html#ixzz0TNSzRyU2)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/08/article-1218927-06BB9062000005DC-931_468x406.jpg)
This is the result of government run healthcare.
-
How do you define best?
You REALLY have to ask that? Advancements in cancer treatments...disease prevention...rehabilitation...what else would you like me to list?
In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.
Link?
You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.
What Liberal website did you steal that crap from?
-
The non-life-threatening conditions you speak of are not covered by health insurance. If an individual wants to "fix" their skin color or nose, they can spend the money to do so. That's not a choice I would deny them.
So you're saying that it should be rhinoplasty...face lifts and boob jobs for everyone?
There's a reason they are called elective surgeries.
What you're advocating is taxpayer subsidized vanity.
-
More gun practice for criminals....so they kill each other instead of giving several people a helicopter ride to the hospital and 4 months of unpaid spa treatments.
-
In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.
Care to back that up?...other than just your opinion.
Also still waiting for you to back this one up as well:
A few things are clear:
1) The status quo is unsustainable. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and insurance profits keep going up. We're the ones getting hurt.
I have a feeling it's gonna be a loooong wait.
-
So you're saying that it should be rhinoplasty...face lifts and boob jobs for everyone?
There's a reason they are called elective surgeries.
What you're advocating is taxpayer subsidized vanity.
That's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you dense? They can spend their own money on it. Health insurance doesn't cover it.
-
That's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you dense? They can spend their own money on it. Health insurance doesn't cover it.
Your lack of clarity isn't my problem.
-
Care to back that up?...other than just your opinion.
Also still waiting for you to back this one up as well:
I have a feeling it's gonna be a loooong wait.
I already linked this about rising costs.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Here's a little graph that compares cost increases to wage increases
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591/F2
We spend way, way more than any other country.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Here's a huge pdf full of pretty graphs, mostly about how much we spend and what we get for it.
As far as our healthcare outcomes, for one we have millions of people uninsured. Lack of access is surely a way to measure?
Somewhere I had a nice neat blog page full of graphs that compared stats on: life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality amenable to healthcare, difficulty accessing care, doctors per-capita, and even waiting times. We were very low on the rankings on all of them. (yes, even in waiting times, though we do beat Canada and the UK) I can't find it at the moment, but I'll look more tomorrow.
Why do I consider our health insurance industry to be so inefficient? We have dozens of companies with hundreds of plans, each having to tailor themselves individually to 50 different states worth of regulations. Every hospital or doctor's office has to negotiate rates with each of these companies. Pharmaceutical companies need to negotiate rates with each of these companies. This creates administrative redundancy that wastes a lot of money.
-
How do you define best?
In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.
I define best as more people COME to this country for operations/treatment than leave to have it done in other countries. We have the best hospitals, the best doctors, the best equipment, the best R & R and the best survival rate for heart disease and cancer than any EU countries. It cost money to have the best.
There is no right to own a house, a car, a cell phone or health insurance. This cr@p about everyone deserves health insurance is BS. In fact, I don't want to pay for those above mentioned items. The government needs to stay out of health care. They will just make it worse.
-
1) Shut down the medicare/medicaid system immediately.
I agree medicaid should be shutdown, but not medicare. Medicaid is nothing more than welfare, period. It is something that mostly poor immigrants collect who have never put anything into the system. You don't need to qualify for it, unlike medicare, all you need to be is poor.
Medicare is legit because its only available to people who are disabled and the elderly. And you have to wait for one year before you get it after your disabled and then you still have to pay for it. Medicare is not welfare, not by a long shot. It's an extension for people who have put into the social security system. Medicare is legit because it goes to people who need healthcare the most, the disabled and the elderly.
--------------------------------------------
My solution with healthcare?
First of all, I think the 30-40 million uninsured is inaccurate. I believe it is much more than that, not including illegal aliens.
I really don't have a clue as how to fix this problem. Perhaps tort reform and allowing insurance companies to sell policies over state lines would solve a great portion of the problem.
The people who need health insurance the most are people who make too much money to qualify for free healthcare and free drug assistance through various channels, but too little to afford buying health insurance on their own because their employer doesn't cover it.
Unfortunately there is no good solution for these people. If you make a public option program for these people, you burden tax payers and lower quality of health care--If you force businesses to give insurance to people, you are burdening the businesses with a penalty for employing a full time worker.
-
I already linked this about rising costs.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
You said:
Healthcare costs are skyrocketing
Your “source†regarding that is titled:
Health Insurance Costs
…and…
national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage
Not the same thing. Try again.
Here's a little graph that compares cost increases to wage increases
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591/F2
Yeah, that’s purdy. No data to back it up. Useless.
We spend way, way more than any other country.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Here's a huge pdf full of pretty graphs, mostly about how much we spend and what we get for it.
"Healthcare spending"....no definition given. Could be many, many things.
“Congressional Research Serviceâ€â€¦.who are they?
In 1914, Congress passed legislation to establish a separate department within the Library of Congress. President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law, and CRS, then called the Legislative Reference Service, was born to serve the legislative needs of the Congress.
With the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Congress renamed the agency the Congressional Research Service and significantly expanded its statutory obligations. The services provided today by CRS are a direct result of congressional directives and guidance.
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html
Nope, no bias there, but they do try to claim otherwise. Kinda a hard to do when you’re taking orders from a liberal controlled Congress.
As far as our healthcare outcomes, for one we have millions of people uninsured. Lack of access is surely a way to measure?
Lack of access??? Really??? Those millions of people must be dying in the streets of other cities. Haven’t seen any here.
Somewhere I had a nice neat blog page full of graphs that compared stats on: life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality amenable to healthcare, difficulty accessing care, doctors per-capita, and even waiting times. We were very low on the rankings on all of them. (yes, even in waiting times, though we do beat Canada and the UK) I can't find it at the moment, but I'll look more tomorrow.
Now there ya go. If it’s in a blog somewhere, it’s gotta be reliable.
Why do I consider our health insurance industry to be so inefficient? We have dozens of companies with hundreds of plans, each having to tailor themselves individually to 50 different states worth of regulations. Every hospital or doctor's office has to negotiate rates with each of these companies. Pharmaceutical companies need to negotiate rates with each of these companies. This creates administrative redundancy that wastes a lot of money.
I was really hoping for some reliable, unbiased resources….you know, with data that backs up the conclusions instead conclusions being made and “research†cooked until in is “supportedâ€.
Don’t even try to tell us that the government will improve efficiency and quality. Just look at how well they do with the public school system.
-
I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.
Their job is to regulate harmful practices.
How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs? Why do you think premiums go up?
I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?
-
I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.
Their job is to regulate harmful practices.
Say what?
How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs?
Didn't say that.
Why do you think premiums go up?
How much time you got?
I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?
-
I agree medicaid should be shutdown, but not medicare. Medicaid is nothing more than welfare, period. It is something that mostly poor immigrants collect who have never put anything into the system. You don't need to qualify for it, unlike medicare, all you need to be is poor.
Medicare is legit because its only available to people who are disabled and the elderly. And you have to wait for one year before you get it after your disabled and then you still have to pay for it. Medicare is not welfare, not by a long shot. It's an extension for people who have put into the social security system. Medicare is legit because it goes to people who need healthcare the most, the disabled and the elderly.
My basic premise is that government - ESPECIALLY the federal level - needs to be gotten the hell out of the Health Insurance industry. (Hell, it needs to be gotten out of EVERY industry, but then we're only talking about health insurance here.)
Medicare has been running in the red for years, and if we don't shut the Ponzi scheme down, it WILL bankrupt us in real short order (2012-2014 based upon estimates made BEFORE the Ø-spending spree) and shut US down. Who the hell cuts out the one tumor on your reproductive organ (Medicaid) but leaves the tumor on their lungs because, "it's legit"? Cut them off, and irradiate the area, or either one, or both together will KILL you.
-
I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.
Their job is to regulate harmful practices.
How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs? Why do you think premiums go up?
I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?
REALLY? Show me where in COTUS that it states that Gov'ts job is to "regulate Harmful Practices."
-
Had a talk with my dentist this morning. For those of you who may believe that gov't isn't the cause of our healtcare "crisis," please listen to this.
My dentist has to pay 2% of gross revenue as a "tax" to help pay for those on Medical Assistance because he provides healthcare for his employees.
He is also forced to see a certain number of patients on MA.
A standard cleaning is $84 and takes about an hour.
MA pays $18.
That doesn't even cover the cost of labor for his hygenist.
-
My basic premise is that government - ESPECIALLY the federal level - needs to be gotten the hell out of the Health Insurance industry. (Hell, it needs to be gotten out of EVERY industry, but then we're only talking about health insurance here.)
Medicare has been running in the red for years, and if we don't shut the Ponzi scheme down, it WILL bankrupt us in real short order (2012-2014 based upon estimates made BEFORE the Ø-spending spree) and shut US down. Who the hell cuts out the one tumor on your reproductive organ (Medicaid) but leaves the tumor on their lungs because, "it's legit"? Cut them off, and irradiate the area, or either one, or both together will KILL you.
Not even the most conservative senior citizen or disabled person would give up their medicare. For many people it is their life line, literally.
I don't see a chance of medicare ever being dismantled. But medicaid is a total different story.
-
Not even the most conservative senior citizen or disabled person would give up their medicare. For many people it is their life line, literally.
I don't see a chance of medicare ever being dismantled. But medicaid is a total different story.
If what you say is true, then there is no saving this country as currently constituted, Mustang. We simply cannot continue to pour money down the bottomless medicare hole. It WILL bankrupt us; it's just a question of when, not if.
Do you really believe this generation of seniors are so self absorbed that they will not let go of the gubmint goodies crackpipe even when they're shown that it's killing us all?
-
REALLY? Show me where in COTUS that it states that Gov'ts job is to "regulate Harmful Practices."
The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses can be construed to mean just about anything and are often abused.
In any case, when the free market is creating a situation that is directly harmful to the public, something does need to be done. For instance, we don't allow car manufacturers to sell cars in the United States unless they meet our safety standards. There was a line of cars the Chinese wanted to sell here, they'd be absurdly cheap. (like $4000) However, they were built horribly and out of cheap, heavy materials with virtually no safety engineering. Their crash testing results were terrifying. A rare "zero star" frontal crash rating from the European equivalent of the IIHS, because "occupants were unlikely to survive a front-end 64kph crash." The engine compartment would just collapse into the lap of the driver.
The point I'm making is that too much government and zero government are both bad things. You need a *little* government to prevent things like "hey lets make kids toys with nice, cheap asbestos!" Or insurance companies being able to deny an insurance claim because they think the procedure is "not necessary."
-
I already linked this about rising costs.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Here's a little graph that compares cost increases to wage increases
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591/F2
We spend way, way more than any other country.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Here's a huge pdf full of pretty graphs, mostly about how much we spend and what we get for it.
As far as our healthcare outcomes, for one we have millions of people uninsured. Lack of access is surely a way to measure?
Somewhere I had a nice neat blog page full of graphs that compared stats on: life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality amenable to healthcare, difficulty accessing care, doctors per-capita, and even waiting times. We were very low on the rankings on all of them. (yes, even in waiting times, though we do beat Canada and the UK) I can't find it at the moment, but I'll look more tomorrow.
Why do I consider our health insurance industry to be so inefficient? We have dozens of companies with hundreds of plans, each having to tailor themselves individually to 50 different states worth of regulations. Every hospital or doctor's office has to negotiate rates with each of these companies. Pharmaceutical companies need to negotiate rates with each of these companies. This creates administrative redundancy that wastes a lot of money.
I repeat:
I hope you realize this is also untrue. Other nations count so many of their healthcare stats differently, there is really no comparison without infinite details. Just for one example, in most of the world, an infant born before 22 weeks is considered a miscarriage and there is no attempt to keep that child alive. In the US, the attempt is made and, if it fails, it is counted under "Infant Mortality." Mortality of mothers is also counted differently, in the US, any maternal death counts as such until a year after the birth (or abortion, if that fact is known), while most countries stop the count at either 4 or 6 months. The "worst healthcare" myth is just that...a myth created by comparing apples and oranges.
-
The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses can be construed to mean just about anything and are often abused.
In any case, when the free market is creating a situation that is directly harmful to the public, something does need to be done. For instance, we don't allow car manufacturers to sell cars in the United States unless they meet our safety standards. There was a line of cars the Chinese wanted to sell here, they'd be absurdly cheap. (like $4000) However, they were built horribly and out of cheap, heavy materials with virtually no safety engineering. Their crash testing results were terrifying. A rare "zero star" frontal crash rating from the European equivalent of the IIHS, because "occupants were unlikely to survive a front-end 64kph crash." The engine compartment would just collapse into the lap of the driver.
The point I'm making is that too much government and zero government are both bad things. You need a *little* government to prevent things like "hey lets make kids toys with nice, cheap asbestos!" Or insurance companies being able to deny an insurance claim because they think the procedure is "not necessary."
Please go re-read COTUS. "promote" general welfare does not mean guarantee, nor does it mean extort the successful to buy the failed. Also reread the interstate commerce clause. Because you're doing exactly what you say others do - construing it to mean what you want.
The free market, by definition, cannot do something harmful. It fails. And 95% of the auto safety requirements are complete bullshit, so you're going to fail using that as an example.
You're correct that no gov't is bad. But we have a government that is at least 10x the size it should be, and YOU are advocating growth in gov't in a healthcare takeover...
-
I repeat:
I hope you realize this is also untrue. Other nations count so many of their healthcare stats differently, there is really no comparison without infinite details. Just for one example, in most of the world, an infant born before 22 weeks is considered a miscarriage and there is no attempt to keep that child alive. In the US, the attempt is made and, if it fails, it is counted under "Infant Mortality." Mortality of mothers is also counted differently, in the US, any maternal death counts as such until a year after the birth (or abortion, if that fact is known), while most countries stop the count at either 4 or 6 months. The "worst healthcare" myth is just that...a myth created by comparing apples and oranges.
Do you have any sources for this, and are there any studies that adjust for these differences?
You're correct that no gov't is bad. But we have a government that is at least 10x the size it should be, and YOU are advocating growth in gov't in a healthcare takeover...
This is true in many fields, but I think health insurance is one industry that needs a few specific practices curtailed.
The free market, by definition, cannot do something harmful.
That's just plain ridiculous.
-
Do you have any sources for this, and are there any studies that adjust for these differences?
Yes, and I've posted them here before. Your topic is hardly brand new. I'll spend some time finding them again tomorrow and repost them, just for you. I wouldn't want you to have to go educating yourself or anything.
-
Do you have any sources for this, and are there any studies that adjust for these differences?
This is true in many fields, but I think health insurance is one industry that needs a few specific practices curtailed.
That's just plain ridiculous.
Please stop doing the highlighted.
You clearly don't understand how a "free market" works. Please do some research before making emotional assumptions.
-
Please stop doing the highlighted.
You clearly don't understand how a "free market" works. Please do some research before making emotional assumptions.
The free market created a situation where people pay premiums for years only to be dropped the second they get sick. This practice harms people. The free market has shown an inability to fix this problem because people have little to no way of judging how fair their insurance company is going to act until they're already sick or injured. If such information were required to be given freely, we might see people taking their business to companies that will treat them better. The dodgy companies would go out of business. The free market would act in a way that is better for the public.
Moral objections are emotional practically by definition. That doesn't make them any less valid. Taken to the extreme, the free market will use practices that harm people. It has happened throughout history.
For example, I object to cheap, toxic Chinese toys being sold in the US without any label to show they are toxic. My only basis for that objection is emotional.
-
Deuce, your arguments are grounded in emotion and devoid of factual examples. For example, did you know that an insurance company can't drop you for "getting sick?" No, you didn't know that, because you just said it like it was a true story or something. Did you also know that the health insurance industry is far from a free market? No, you didn't know that either apparently. A cursory glance at the creation of HMOs, Medicare and Medicaid will be enlightening, if you're interested.
Look, make your case. Build it on logic and truth. Use some examples of a truly free market scewing people over and show comparisons between that example and some examples of similar practices being used in the health insurance industry. Otherwise, your argument comes off as, "whine whine whine insurance companies dirty rotten free market evil." It's, well, just like a liberal to argue the way you're arguing.
Morality deals with emotional subjects (for example, children being poisoned by toxic Chinese toys) but the best debates about morality are objective and devoid of emotional appeals. You may base an objection on an emotion, and your objection itself may be reasonable in the end, but your thinking is shaky if you argue purely from emotion. Avoid it if you'd like to have rewarding discussions.
-
Deuce, your arguments are grounded in emotion and devoid of factual examples. For example, did you know that an insurance company can't drop you for "getting sick?" No, you didn't know that, because you just said it like it was a true story or something. Did you also know that the health insurance industry is far from a free market? No, you didn't know that either apparently. A cursory glance at the creation of HMOs, Medicare and Medicaid will be enlightening, if you're interested.
Look, make your case. Build it on logic and truth. Use some examples of a truly free market scewing people over and show comparisons between that example and some examples of similar practices being used in the health insurance industry. Otherwise, your argument comes off as, "whine whine whine insurance companies dirty rotten free market evil." It's, well, just like a liberal to argue the way you're arguing.
Morality deals with emotional subjects (for example, children being poisoned by toxic Chinese toys) but the best debates about morality are objective and devoid of emotional appeals. You may base an objection on an emotion, and your objection itself may be reasonable in the end, but your thinking is shaky if you argue purely from emotion. Avoid it if you'd like to have rewarding discussions.
Well stated.
-
Medicare has been running in the red for years, and if we don't shut the Ponzi scheme down, it WILL bankrupt us in real short order (2012-2014 based upon estimates made BEFORE the Ø-spending spree) and shut US down. Who the hell cuts out the one tumor on your reproductive organ (Medicaid) but leaves the tumor on their lungs because, "it's legit"? Cut them off, and irradiate the area, or either one, or both together will KILL you.
So you want to kick Seniors to the curb because the government has spent the money (contributions made by seniors) that was designated for this purpose. Medicaid is another ball game. The government has also stolen, robbed and pilaged the Social Security Trust money for over 40 years. There is no money in this fund;only IOU's.
-
Look, make your case.
Are you guys honestly of the opinion that the free market, when entirely unregulated, cannot cause harm?
I just want to clarify that before I make a more detailed response.
-
Are you guys honestly of the opinion that the free market, when entirely unregulated, cannot cause harm?
I just want to clarify that before I make a more detailed response.
Let's be clear on some things. A "free market" is not some idea that anything goes. For example, a free market would not allow for a monopoly, because a monopoly is the antithesis of "free market." So clearly, an unregulated free market is an oxymoron.
But no, a free market cannot cause harm. Someone may be harmed while dealing and trading via the free market, but that is entirely his or her own responsibility, both in cause and recourse.
Discuss.
-
But no, a free market cannot cause harm. Someone may be harmed while dealing and trading via the free market, but that is entirely his or her own responsibility, both in cause and recourse.
Thanks for the clarification.
The first gigantic, obvious answer is "SLAVERY." Slavery existed because it's far cheaper to import someone to be a permanent, wageless worker than it is to hire someone. Is slavery the slave's responsibility for being hurt by dealing with a free market? Of course not.
But that's too extreme, and also not entirely relevant to health insurance. So here goes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33198459/ns/health-health_care/
In 2006, attorney Jody Neal-Post tried to get health insurance but was rejected because of treatment — counseling and Valium — she received following a domestic-abuse incident. She says the insurer told her that her medical history made her a high risk, more likely to end up in the emergency room or require additional care.
This woman was denied health insurance because her ex-husband beat the crap out of her. That made her "high-risk." Eight states do not have a law preventing this practice - using abuse history as a reason for denying coverage. A victim of a crime is being punished by the free market.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Blue Cross of California encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) charged at the start of a congressional hearing today on the controversial practice known as rescission.
Encouraging dropping policies for sick people. They have people paid to pore over legalese that only a lawyer can truly dissect and find reasons to drop coverage for the sick. They don't apply this process to the profitable clients. This is not an isolated incident, I recall an article about another company offering bonuses to those who exceed a rescission quota.
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health-insurance-better-double-check-and-be/
This woman had a $30,000 claim retroactively denied and her policy canceled because she failed to disclose a back that was occasionally sore after playing soccer. This was a "pre-existing condition." (guess I should stop exercising) The claim was for some cysts on her scalp being removed.
Health insurance companies do not need to review your medical history at the time the policy is issued. The fact that they can collect premiums on a policy they do not intend to actually provide is harmful. You think you're covered, but they can drop the policy after a claim is made, leaving you with the medical bills and no right to collect your premiums back. Worse: once this happens to you, you're going to have an extremely hard time getting coverage from any other company. After all, you have a pre-existing condition on record!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/in-health-care-number-of_n_291881.html
Data on how often insurance claims are denied -- and for what reasons -- is collected and analyzed by the insurance companies themselves. But except in California, the companies aren't required to provide those records to any state or federal agency. "The number is knowable, but not known by regulators or policy makers or patients," Pollitz said.
A citizen is unable to easily judge the behavior of the insurance company they sign a contract with, because nothing forces that company to reveal information about those practices. The free market would function better if people had foreknowledge of how their policy would be handled.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/begala.health.care/
"Peggy Raddatz, whose brother Otto Raddatz lost his insurance coverage right before he was scheduled to receive an expensive stem-cell transplant to treat his lymphoma. Why? Because Fortis Insurance Company discovered his doctor had found gall stones and an aneurysm on a CT scan -- conditions that had nothing to do with his cancer, that never bothered him and that he wasn't even aware of.
Dropping coverage due to unrelated illnesses that the patient isn't even aware of. An individual wishing to avoid this pretty much needs precognition or their own medical degree.
Conclusion
The free market works, but it requires the public have access to the information they need to make a decision about what they're purchasing. Since health insurance operates on a "what if," future basis, it can be extremely difficult to judge the quality of your plan until it's too late. Providing such information goes against the best interests of your health insurance company, so they simply will not do it unless forced to do so.
You may think these are anecdotal cases, not representative of the industry as a whole, but you can spend literally all day reading about cases like these. The very fact that they can legally do this sort of thing shows that they are capable of causing harm when it suits their best interests - the profit margin. Health insurance workers aren't bad people, the company just has an incentive to not provide you with care when you need it.
edit: And I haven't even touched on how insurance companies "get between you and your doctor" yet!
-
Deuce,
Just a real short question for you:
Have you ever gotten sick in a foreign country?
Just a simple yes or no will do.
Thank you.
-
Deuce,
Just a real short question for you:
Have you ever gotten sick in a foreign country?
Just a simple yes or no will do.
Thank you.
No.
Why do you ask?
-
No.
Why do you ask?
If you'd ever gotten health care in a foreign country - virtually ANY foreign country - you'd never again attempt to equate health care in this country to another country.
We've got the best there is. Period.
-
edit: And I haven't even touched on how insurance companies "get between you and your doctor" yet!
That doesn't happen. A person always has the option of paying out of pocket for any medical treatment they desire and there ain't jack shit the insurance companies can do about it.
Insurance companies don't deny treatment. They can and sometimes do refuse to pay for it, but that ain't the same as denying it.
-
The first gigantic, obvious answer is "SLAVERY." Slavery existed because it's far cheaper to import someone to be a permanent, wageless worker than it is to hire someone. Is slavery the slave's responsibility for being hurt by dealing with a free market? Of course not.
But that's too extreme, and also not entirely relevant to health insurance. So here goes.
The problem with that example is not that it's extreme, it's that it's ignorant. Would you consider slavery to be an act of dealing and trading via the free market? Of course not. A free market is not had through use of force, as slavery is. A slave's only recourse is through equal or greater force but at this point we're no longer even talking about economics, but about morality.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33198459/ns/health-health_care/
This woman was denied health insurance because her ex-husband beat the crap out of her. That made her "high-risk." Eight states do not have a law preventing this practice - using abuse history as a reason for denying coverage. A victim of a crime is being punished by the free market.
Do we know the outcome? Did every insurance company in the state also deny her coverage for the same reasons? At face value, this is an inflammatory case that has strong emotional appeal, but we don't know the germane facts. Let's also not delude ourselves and pretend she has no recourse.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Encouraging dropping policies for sick people. They have people paid to pore over legalese that only a lawyer can truly dissect and find reasons to drop coverage for the sick. They don't apply this process to the profitable clients. This is not an isolated incident, I recall an article about another company offering bonuses to those who exceed a rescission quota.
Of course an insurance company would desire to drop policies that are net losses for them. That is pure reason from a economic standpoint, anyone's need for coverage notwithstanding. That is why, when you enter into the act of trading with an insurance company, you do so through a contract for services. If an insurance company violates its contract in any manner, the offended party again has recourse, through lawyers undoubtedly similar to those working for the insurance company. "Legalese," "rescission" and "bonuses based on quotas" don't scare me, nor should they scare you.
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health-insurance-better-double-check-and-be/
This woman had a $30,000 claim retroactively denied and her policy canceled because she failed to disclose a back that was occasionally sore after playing soccer. This was a "pre-existing condition." (guess I should stop exercising) The claim was for some cysts on her scalp being removed.
Again, strong emotional appeal without relevant facts. And again, she has recourse if she feels the terms of her contract with the insurance company were violated.
Health insurance companies do not need to review your medical history at the time the policy is issued. The fact that they can collect premiums on a policy they do not intend to actually provide is harmful. You think you're covered, but they can drop the policy after a claim is made, leaving you with the medical bills and no right to collect your premiums back. Worse: once this happens to you, you're going to have an extremely hard time getting coverage from any other company. After all, you have a pre-existing condition on record!
Do you actually believe this? Do you have health insurance? Do you understand the terms of your contract and the relevant laws of your state? You sound so frightened of a relatively straightforward thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/in-health-care-number-of_n_291881.html
A citizen is unable to easily judge the behavior of the insurance company they sign a contract with, because nothing forces that company to reveal information about those practices. The free market would function better if people had foreknowledge of how their policy would be handled.
What behavior does a potential customer need to understand, other than the terms of their contract?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/begala.health.care/
Dropping coverage due to unrelated illnesses that the patient isn't even aware of. An individual wishing to avoid this pretty much needs precognition or their own medical degree.
That sounds terrible. Have the terms of the contract been violated? What was the resolution?
Essentially, your examples provide a very strong case for knowing exactly what you're getting into when you enter into a contract with a health insurance company. Far too many people in this country believe you write a check, send it off, and then *poof* you're golden.
Conclusion
The free market works, but it requires the public have access to the information they need to make a decision about what they're purchasing. Since health insurance operates on a "what if," future basis, it can be extremely difficult to judge the quality of your plan until it's too late. Providing such information goes against the best interests of your health insurance company, so they simply will not do it unless forced to do so.
Again, what are you talking about? There is no limit of information. Shopping for health insurance and going over the details will take you roughly half a day to narrow things down. Properly studying each policy and how it relates to your current needs may take several days. There is a plethora of information out there.
You may think these are anecdotal cases, not representative of the industry as a whole, but you can spend literally all day reading about cases like these. The very fact that they can legally do this sort of thing shows that they are capable of causing harm when it suits their best interests - the profit margin. Health insurance workers aren't bad people, the company just has an incentive to not provide you with care when you need it.
edit: And I haven't even touched on how insurance companies "get between you and your doctor" yet!
The company has an incentive to make money. That's it. An insurance company has no other goal than to make money. They do that by taking in more revenue than they spend on claims. This is not an evil thing. I'm quite sure you could dig up story after story illustrating the evils of the health insurance companies, and more likely than not I'd end up saying, "yeah, that sounds shitty," to a lot of them. Maybe our responses are different because I don't actually put any amount of faith or trust into an industry. I know what I'm paying for and I know what options are open to me if I've been cheated by a dishonest company.
We can find ways to reform the worst aspects of the health insurance industry, no doubt, but we don't have to demonize the free market and take a sledgehammer to the entire industry, agreed?
-
If you'd ever gotten health care in a foreign country - virtually ANY foreign country - you'd never again attempt to equate health care in this country to another country.
We've got the best there is. Period.
Since people demanded I do so, I will ask you to cite some sources that back up your claim. My word wasn't taken at face value, and I wont be taking yours.
That doesn't happen. A person always has the option of paying out of pocket for any medical treatment they desire and there ain't jack shit the insurance companies can do about it.
Insurance companies don't deny treatment. They can and sometimes do refuse to pay for it, but that ain't the same as denying it.
When it's a procedure you can't afford, it amounts to the same thing. THAT does happen. A public option, by the way, would have the same result. The government might refuse a procedure, but you could still pay for it out of pocket.
Eupher, I see your post avatar says retired military. Have you had any experience with the VA healthcare system? If so, how would you describe its effectiveness and overall service?
Chump - You're dumping all of the responsibility on the prey and exonerating the predator. People are dumb and can't understand the huge contracts they're signing. Insurance companies abuse this. Also, what reasonable person would have considered "sore back when I exercise" to be a pre-existing medical condition? Yes, she may have had recourse - spending money on a lawyer to battle it out in a lethargic court system, all the while being called by collections agencies about that $30,000 she owes. It's a system weighted in favor of the health insurance company.
Let's say it was within the bounds of the contract for the insurance company to drop a policy base on the sore back. She still paid premiums to a company who never had any intention of paying out.
As far as what a customer needs to understand? They need to understand just how their contract will be interpreted. The words on the paper mean different things to you than they do to your adjuster.
We can find ways to reform the worst aspects of the health insurance industry, no doubt, but we don't have to demonize the free market and take a sledgehammer to the entire industry, agreed?
That's exactly what I'm proposing. Reforming the worst aspects of the health insurance industry. Nothing more. I'm not saying the government should take over. I'm not saying we should go single-payer, or ban profits. Or dismantle insurance companies. Just stop the practices that hurt people.
-
When it's a procedure you can't afford, it amounts to the same thing.
You ever hear of a "payment plan"?
Nobody is saying you have to be able to pay the entire bill up front.
People are dumb and can't understand the huge contracts they're signing.
Then they shouldn't sign it without consulting a lawyer.
-
Oh and BTW....
Nobody has a RIGHT to health care insurance.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!
-
You ever hear of a "payment plan"?
Nobody is saying you have to be able to pay the entire bill up front.
Then they shouldn't sign it without consulting a lawyer.
Unaffordable is unaffordable. There are people who die from lack of money.
Oh and BTW....
Nobody has a RIGHT to health care insurance.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!
Does that mean we shouldn't do anything to improve the affordability and effectiveness of our health insurance industry?
-
There are people who die from lack of money.
People with lots of money die too.
-
Unaffordable is unaffordable.
Nonsense. Some folks just don't want to pay for services rendered out of their own pocket.
-
People with lots of money die too.
Not from lack of money.
Nonsense. Some folks just don't want to pay for services rendered out of their own pocket.
Nice edit there. I saw that.
Some people cannot access healthcare because they are poor and do not have insurance. Some of those people die of preventable conditions because of that lack of care. But don't take my word for it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:
* Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
* Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
* About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.
Yes, some of these people could have afforded health insurance and chose not to purchase it. However, it is obvious that some of these people could not afford it. They died because they weren't treated the same way someone with insurance is treated.
-
Does that mean we shouldn't do anything to improve the affordability and effectiveness of our health insurance industry?
It damn sure does if it means tax payers have to foot the bill.
I for one am damn sick and tired of paying for those that refuse to pay for their own upkeep.
-
Chump - You're dumping all of the responsibility on the prey and exonerating the predator. People are dumb and can't understand the huge contracts they're signing. Insurance companies abuse this. Also, what reasonable person would have considered "sore back when I exercise" to be a pre-existing medical condition? Yes, she may have had recourse - spending money on a lawyer to battle it out in a lethargic court system, all the while being called by collections agencies about that $30,000 she owes. It's a system weighted in favor of the health insurance company.
Prey? Predator? People are dumb? This is why I implored you earlier to check your emotions. It's silly to claim that the issue in question was, "sore back when I exercise," and we again don't know the outcome or relevant facts. This is why you speculate that even in the face of all this lack of real evidence, it just doesn't matter, the outcome would be bad anyway. Grumble grumble, insurance companies.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. Reforming the worst aspects of the health insurance industry. Nothing more. I'm not saying the government should take over. I'm not saying we should go single-payer, or ban profits. Or dismantle insurance companies. Just stop the practices that hurt people.
How odd. I haven't once accused you of wanting single-payer, or even of being a capitalist hating hippie douche. You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence designed to appeal to emotion while you, essentially, made a case against insurance companies as a whole. You've still not hammered anything down though, other than vague calls for more regulation to make sure insurance companies toe the line.
And my response, as an actual conservative, is that we remove the line in the first place. Allow insurance companies to act as companies selling a product. Remove barriers for interstate commerce in the health insurance business. Allow "a la carte" insurance options. In short, allow and expect the consumer to take more responsibility for their insurance needs. But I have to warn you, that entails a mild implosion in government bureaucracy. We have good laws on the books regarding the product of health insurance that protect the consumer. Perhaps you could point to some that need strengthened. However, I'd rather focus on getting rid of the ones that impede free trade.
Being real for a moment, you can stop acting like a conservative. Your masked has slipped way, way too many times.
-
Unaffordable is unaffordable. There are people who die from lack of money.
Does that mean we shouldn't do anything to improve the affordability and effectiveness of our health insurance industry?
It can be without a government takeover but that isn`t what the goal really is and you seem to know that in the back of your mind but still are trying to force yourself to believe otherwise.
This is not a benign attempt to make anyones life better...it is an attempt to create another political third rail of systemic dependency on government.
Admit that and everything else becomes very clear.
-
You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest.
Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread. I asked what you would do, in the very title of the thread, and very few people have offered anything at all, let alone anything as detailed or specific as mine.
Instead, you've all focused on picking apart my ideas. Which is good, it's led to some interesting discussions, but honestly how many actual ideas have you folks contributed here?
-
Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread.
No. You posted a wish list without any plans on how to actually make it happen.
Typical liberal tactic.
-
No. You posted a wish list without any plans on how to actually make it happen.
Typical liberal tactic.
You have not posted a single idea of your own.
edit: And point me to the poster who you feel has contributed more detailed ideas.
-
You haven't said a word of anything you'd like to actually implement, to be honest.
Read the first page. I think I've been more specific and detailed than anybody else in this six page thread. I asked what you would do, in the very title of the thread, and very few people have offered anything at all, let alone anything as detailed or specific as mine.
Instead, you've all focused on picking apart my ideas. Which is good, it's led to some interesting discussions, but honestly how many actual ideas have you folks contributed here?
My apologies, you're absolutely right that you presented quite a few ideas. I repeated a few of them, even.
Our differences hinge on government involvement when it comes down to brass tacks. Shocking, I know. Don't overlook the people that have agreed with you on some points, but you did ask for the picking apart that you're getting, and it's all focused on areas in which you'd like to see government expansion.
-
Deuce -
I'd like to introduce you to a place that I think you'd find much more agreeable, homey and in line with your emotionally driven decision making.... Click here (http://www.democraticunderground.com)
-
Yes, most of the criticism involved government. Some people are categorically against any government involvement, but that's irrational. A system free of government is anarchy.
Many here seem to be making the mistake of seeing government involvement in our lives as a singular, binary question. It's a continuum, and "the right choice," if there is such a thing, isn't even in the same position for different aspects of our lives.
Example:
The US military is set up at the far end of the "government control" side, and should be. State-by-state national defense would be disorganized and ineffective, what if Nebraska didn't feel like sending troops to Iraq anymore? Privatized defense is an almost ludicrous idea - mercenaries are generally untrustworthy and of low quality.
Manufacturing of candy bars, on the other hand, is pretty far to the "hands off" side. As long as you tell people what's in the bar and don't poison people, you're pretty much left alone. You can sell where you want, when you want, and for how much you want. Your competitors can do the same.
I feel both of these are right where they should be.
On healthcare:
You're here
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------------------------------{}---NO GOVERNMENT
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------------------------{}---------NO GOVERNMENT
I'm here. It's frustrating to receive such anger over a fairly minor difference of opinion.
Canada is here
ALL GOVERNMENT------------------{}--------------------------------NO GOVERNMENT
UK is here
ALL GOVERNMENT--------{}------------------------------------------NO GOVERNMENT
France is here
ALL GOVERNMENT-----------------------{}---------------------------NO GOVERNMENT
-
Deuce quoted
Quote
Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:
* Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
* Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
* About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.
People with colon or breast cancer die. Often both cancers are far advanced BEFORE they are ever detected lowering the chance of survival.
"Cured" breast cancer often revisits the body in a different place....ie: bone, blood, lymph nodes, liver, etc. It is important to note that while the cancer may be located in a different part of the body...if it is the same type of cancer cell as the breast cancer....it is considered to be "breast cancer origin"...therefore the death statistics will be under "breast cancer".
Calling :bs: on your trauma victims not being admitted to the hospital. It is a LAW that if a trauma victim is brought to the ER....THEY MUST BE GIVEN CARE AND TREATMENT. It is possible that once stabilized, they may be moved to a "public" hospital. Actually, I believe the law requires that an ER treat ANYONE who presents themselves to the ER....how do you think all those illegal aliens are getting medical care? Walk into the ER of a large hospital on a Saturday night....sit there for a few hours and watch and see how many are refused treatment. While there may be a wait of several hours...eventually EVERYONE receives treatment. Even if someone has insurance...they don't get treated before someone without unless their condition warrants it.
It is important to note that a trauma victim, while they may be dead at the scene, are often not declared dead until arrival at the hospital. My step mother dropped over dead walking the dog. While she was dead at the scene, she was not declared dead until AFTER she arrived at the hospital.
Adult's with adult onset diabetes often donot know they are diabetic until something else brings them to the doctor. Even those with frequent checkups still end up with blindness and amputations. Also severe kidney issues. They are consequences of the disease. Juvenile diabetics donot avoid going to a doctor....even as an adult....they can't avoid getting medical care....due to their disease.
-
I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included. If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not. The latter is more expensive too....
I agree.
My employer is dropping all HMO options for insurance, claiming they cost more then the PPO plans. Of course, my share of the cost will now double!
-
People with lots of money die too.
Hi-5. And they die with the best insurance coverage, as well.
-
Deuce:
My experience with foreign health care is just that - EXPERIENCE. I've been there. Seen things. Been treated. They've generally appalled me.
You're not going to get a link to that kind of stuff.
As to my thoughts on the VA, I have none. I don't use it. I don't want the government to become part and parcel to my health information. But regarding my stepfather, I have seen some things with the Detroit VA and for that reason alone, I'd never willingly put my own ass in that situation.
I've heard some good stuff about VA's health care and I've heard some really terrible stories. All anecdotal. I have no opinion on VA because I don't trust the government.
-
...There are people who die from lack of money.....
That's got to be the DUmbest statement on this site.
-
That's got to be the DUmbest statement on this site.
There are people that die from too much money also. Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith to name a couple.
-
What would YOU do to improve healthcare?
Nothing. I pay $140 a month for my family which includes dental and vision. Yup,
I have deductables, so I have a cafeteria plan................I planned ahead.
We have NEVER been turned down for anything, and my wife is the queen of "ailments". Nothing serious, but she burns through the $2000 I set aside every year. (see cafeteria plan)
Oh, it one of those "horrible" PPO's, Anthem.
-
Yes, most of the criticism involved government. Some people are categorically against any government involvement, but that's irrational. A system free of government is anarchy.
Many here seem to be making the mistake of seeing government involvement in our lives as a singular, binary question. It's a continuum, and "the right choice," if there is such a thing, isn't even in the same position for different aspects of our lives.
This is, again, a time that your mask slips. Government is necessary for one purpose, only. It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force. Period. It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws. This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me. This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.
Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal. So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.
Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.
Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.
-
This is, again, a time that your mask slips. Government is necessary for one purpose, only. It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force. Period. It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws. This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me. This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.
Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal. So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.
Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.
Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.
Excellent post, Chump. Very well stated.
-
This is, again, a time that your mask slips. Government is necessary for one purpose, only. It is an institution created only to protect men's rights against the threat of force. Period. It must be entirely objective and based on an entirely objective set of laws. This is, again, why emotional appeals regarding the government fall flat with me. This is why compassionate conservatism is a farce, and why liberalism is a cancerous death cult.
Due to its very nature, proper government only has the power of compulsion and threat of force at the end of a gun at its disposal. So, to your above point, it's not that we have a misunderstanding of government involvement in our lives, it's that you have a misunderstanding of the premise that governing is built on.
Government involvement in personal life is only the continuum you mentioned because we've allowed its scope to creep so far for so long, to the point that we actually think people are entitled to things they didn't work for, taken from those who did, by the only institution capable of instituting force without legal reprisal: government.
Every sad story you can drum up doesn't change those basic premises.
You keep calling it a mask as if its something I'm trying to hide. I am more moderate than you guys, that's not something I hide. It's a far cry, however, between my views and Stalin's views. The KKK probably considers you to be liberal. It's all relative, and the scale is a large one. I fall somewhat left of you. I fall to the right of Obama.
Are you suggesting that the only government organizations at all should be the military and law enforcement agencies? Should we stop building roads? How about a fire department? The postal service? Maybe we should stop regulating what people dump into our drinking water? Nuclear power plants don't need safety regulations, right?
You're right. It is a mission creep. Please explain to me where exactly we should draw the line, because my so-called common sense (of which I have little, I admit) draws the line differently than you. The majority of the population seems closer to me than to you, though.
EDIT: And somebody, please post some ideas of your own. That was the purpose of this thread, starting some discussion on the topic.
People with colon or breast cancer die. Often both cancers are far advanced BEFORE they are ever detected lowering the chance of survival.
"Cured" breast cancer often revisits the body in a different place....ie: bone, blood, lymph nodes, liver, etc. It is important to note that while the cancer may be located in a different part of the body...if it is the same type of cancer cell as the breast cancer....it is considered to be "breast cancer origin"...therefore the death statistics will be under "breast cancer".
Calling :bs: on your trauma victims not being admitted to the hospital. It is a LAW that if a trauma victim is brought to the ER....THEY MUST BE GIVEN CARE AND TREATMENT. It is possible that once stabilized, they may be moved to a "public" hospital. Actually, I believe the law requires that an ER treat ANYONE who presents themselves to the ER....how do you think all those illegal aliens are getting medical care? Walk into the ER of a large hospital on a Saturday night....sit there for a few hours and watch and see how many are refused treatment. While there may be a wait of several hours...eventually EVERYONE receives treatment. Even if someone has insurance...they don't get treated before someone without unless their condition warrants it.
It is important to note that a trauma victim, while they may be dead at the scene, are often not declared dead until arrival at the hospital. My step mother dropped over dead walking the dog. While she was dead at the scene, she was not declared dead until AFTER she arrived at the hospital.
Adult's with adult onset diabetes often donot know they are diabetic until something else brings them to the doctor. Even those with frequent checkups still end up with blindness and amputations. Also severe kidney issues. They are consequences of the disease. Juvenile diabetics donot avoid going to a doctor....even as an adult....they can't avoid getting medical care....due to their disease.
These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10367&page=R1
-
These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10367&page=R1
There are so many factors to be entered when determining what one's chances are of living.
ANY study can be skewed to get the desired results. It all has to do with the criteria used to get the results.
My son in law is a radiologist interventionist in the trauma unit of University Hospital.....they treat everyone that comes in....regardless of whether or not the individual has insurance.
-
You keep calling it a mask as if its something I'm trying to hide. I am more moderate than you guys, that's not something I hide. It's a far cry, however, between my views and Stalin's views. The KKK probably considers you to be liberal. It's all relative, and the scale is a large one. I fall somewhat left of you. I fall to the right of Obama.
I will concede that the mask has slipped so many times it's hardly worth hiding anymore.
It's not all relative, or this discussion would be meaningless. There is a wide gap between Stalin and myself, with you being more or less an intermediary.
One group's perception of another does not change basic fact or a beginning premise and its axioms, so stop pretending otherwise.
Are you suggesting that the only government organizations at all should be the military and law enforcement agencies?
More or less, yes. I'm saying that the only purpose of government is to protect its citizens' rights from the threat of force. I'll admit that I can't conceive, on the spot, of every single facet or sub-organization this might entail, but I can tell you that they will only be of a military, protection, or law enforcement nature. It's a tautology.
Should we stop building roads?
Paid for by whom and used primarily by whom?
How about a fire department?
See above.
The postal service?
That's an excellent illustration of how inefficient government is when it involves itself in a private industry. However, the history of the postal service is built on government design and involvement. That does not necessarily mean it must be this way, as the history of FedEx, UPS, and DHL illustrates.
Maybe we should stop regulating what people dump into our drinking water? Nuclear power plants don't need safety regulations, right?
And we move from discussion to blatant silliness. Clearly, men's health is (right to life) is impacted by both of the above, correct? You've named two areas in which government involvement is necessary and told me I think the opposite. This is called a strawman, and you'd be better off not attributing arguments to me that I haven't made.
You're right. It is a mission creep. Please explain to me where exactly we should draw the line, because my so-called common sense (of which I have little, I admit) draws the line differently than you. The majority of the population seems closer to me than to you, though.
I've already defined my lines. I don't care what the majority of anyone or anything thinks; a logical premise is not based on anything but logic. Besides, you've already admitted that the scope of government has been bloated, so is it any wonder that most people would accept that fact? They allowed it to happen in the first place, no?
-
EDIT: And somebody, please post some ideas of your own. That was the purpose of this thread, starting some discussion on the topic.
I did, and so did others, with varying degrees of detail. We've moved on to more in-depth discussion, which you explicitly asked for in your OP.
-
Deuce:
These statistics are comparing people with insurance to people without insurance. A 50% variation is not a statistical anomaly. It is a clear trend showing that having health insurance directly correlates to your chance of living. None of these statistics are anomalous variations, it's a clear difference in the outcomes. If you doubt the validity of the study, it can be found here.
Who the hell is talking statistics here when common sense tells me that, of course, if you have health insurance you're inclined to use it, and if you don't have health insurance you're inclined not to seek health care?
WTF??? :mental:
From the article:
"Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance"?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. No bias there, nope, not a bit. :whatever:
Regarding your incessant demand to hear other's ideas about health care, I think you've heard them. You may need to go back to the beginning of the thread and take note. Lots of good ideas (as well as just a little scoffing at your moonbattery) sprinkled therein.
-
I'm glad I stopped by the Democrat Underground forum, because I found this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/12/ap/strange/main5380472.shtml
:lmao:
Anyway.
Eupher - The point is that people are literally more likely to die without insurance than with. I brought that up and people said it was "nonsense." I then posted statistics that support it.
The "ideas" others posted either I already said, or they were "end medicaid/medicare"
So I'll discuss those, since they are so vague.
So we end Medicare. Seniors everywhere are left without support, the sickest population we have. Pulling the plug on grandma, literally. Many would go bankrupt, spending what little savings they have trying to keep themselves alive. When those funds run out? When they must choose between paying rent and paying for lifesaving medication?
Billions of dollars are freed up. What do we do with them? Immediately end the taxes supporting Medicare seems obvious, but what do we do with the people who have paid into the system for years but will never benefit from it? Send them a check? Do we take some of the money and distribute it to the states for some much-needed road repairs or school renovations?
Or do we end Medicare in a more phased manner, by simply not signing up any more people? As the current enrollment dies off, the costs will trail down and eventually go to zero.
Medicaid: The very poor are left now without coverage. When they get sick or hurt, they still go to the hospital. Do we leave them on the street or care for them anyway? Who pays for it? Without the Medicaid support, the hospital must increase its overcharging of insurance companies to stay afloat. Premiums go up, we all end up paying for it anyway.
If you leave them on the street, aren't we just creating that "dying for lack of money" situation?
-
Reversing government scope creep is not a "sign this paper now everyone is ****ed" process. We get back to proper government limits strategically, so that we don't make a bad situation worse.
Some, those who've lived lives declaring their entitlement to the production of others, will find several rugs pulled out from under them. So be it.
Stop reverting to emotional appeals, Deuce. We're talking logical limits and basic premises, and you're talking about pulling the plug on Grandma's life support, as if I'm supposed to say, "OK, I'm sad now. You win." You're still arguing from the premise that it's the government's responsibility to provide anything other than protection for its citizens, and I've said over and over that I reject that premise outright.
-
And that guy was no ninja. First, he was seen and his motives were known. Then there's this:
Officers said they pulled out bean bag and taser guns, and the man became polite and cooperative.
Pretty ****ing weak "ninja" there.
-
The only way to stop Medicare is to stop it for those who have never worked, received a paycheck with taxes paid.
Everyone else is paying into it with every paycheck, or if self-employed, when they pay their income taxes.
I've been working and paying taxes for 40 years...I'm entitled to receive Medicare.
-
The only way to stop Medicare is to stop it for those who have never worked, received a paycheck with taxes paid.
Everyone else is paying into it with every paycheck, or if self-employed, when they pay their income taxes.
I've been working and paying taxes for 40 years...I'm entitled to receive Medicare.
And it's the same story with Social Security, and a perfect example of how destructive a bloated government is. The ideal behind Social Security and Medicare, while admirable from a social standpoint, has been perverted and corrupted because neither are within the realm of government responsibility.
I would very much appreciate a say in how money that, as you pointed out deb, I'm absolutely entitled to (having been mine in the first place) being left in my own hands to do with as I please.
-
And it's the same story with Social Security, and a perfect example of how destructive a bloated government is. The ideal behind Social Security and Medicare, while admirable from a social standpoint, has been perverted and corrupted because neither are within the realm of government responsibility.
I would very much appreciate a say in how money that, as you pointed out deb, I'm absolutely entitled to (having been mine in the first place) being left in my own hands to do with as I please.
Chump.....I can't remember which pairing it was ...either Michael Moore/Hannity or Bill Maher/one of his guests.....and they were arguing that "rich" people collect the same amount of SS and Medicare and those in the middle class.
I was so frustrated watching the tv and couldn't believe the stupidity.....
There is a cap on how much SS or Medicare benefits one can receive...regardless of how much they have paid into taxes in a lifetime.
Once at a certain income level...it doesn't matter how many years you have worked and how much you have paid to SS over the years....you still can never exceed the cap.
To say that a "rich" person receives more SS than a middle class person...is not necessarily true.
While I will never qualify for as much SS money as my other half does....he still will never receive as much as he has put in over 50 years.
I know he would much rather have been able to invest the money he has paid for 50 years into SS.....he would be getting a better return for his investment.
-
Deuce:
You seem horribly fixed on the idea that "people are literally more likely to die without insurance than with."
That's a no-brainer and requires very little thought because common sense tells me that you're right. The other part of me says, "So what?"
Your presentation is flawed because it's fraught with emotion. Speaking for myself, I'd say it isn't the basic point you're making, it's how you're making it.
Based on your logic and your very emotional appeal (Chump has that part completely correct vis a vis your methodology of argument), I think it stands to reason the following:
"People are literally more likely to die in motor vehicle accidents when they're in said vehicles than not."
Of course people are going to die in motor vehicle accidents when they're riding in them. Doh! And there are going to be rich people and some have-nots. Most of the have-nots are going to struggle in this world. Many of the rich will too, because they're using their wits, their resources, and their entrepreneurship to find a better life for themselves and their families. This is not to suggest that the have-nots don't do that as well, but you're going to find far fewer rich people standing there with their hand out expecting Uncle Sugar to take care of them.
Your basic premise is to force the country to adopt a hand-wringing, gotta-throw-money-at-the-have-nots policy (under the cloak of "humanitarianism") of the kind of scope that will further cripple the country. If you want to see a link on that, just check out the debacle that is the Massachusetts health care system today.
As a determined conservative, I can see that we're going to have have-nots. And I further see our current system taking care of those have-nots. Do they get the same stellar health care of, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger? Of course not. Do some die because they're homeless and they expire while waiting in the waiting room overnight? Yep, some of that is going to happen.
Rolling back government, i.e., Medicare and Medicaid, simply won't happen. As passionate as DefiantSix is about his position on the issue, politics will see to it that those government systems stay. Some of the nuances might change and benefits reduced, but the U.S. Congress rarely met a government program it didn't like, keeping most of those long beyond their usefulness. So I think you can put your mind at rest on that issue.
Medicaid (cough) and Medicare (choke) will stay.
What did the country do for its geezers and have-nots before LBJ and his Great Society came along? That might be the larger question.
Families were tighter in those years, and neighbors more inclined to help you if you had a problem. Churches were sanctuaries in thought, word, and deed and helped people of all types. It may be a stretch, but I think the basic changes in our society as reflected in the LBJ Great Society example have resulted in a degradation of family and community that plagues us far beyond your lamenting poor people today.
Think about it. Would Mr. Jones, in 1935 in the midst of the Great Depression, calmly walk around the freezing, homeless figure of Mr. Smith completely ignoring him? Mr. Jones today worries about being sued because he tried to help someone and the act blew up in his face.
Tort reform should be an absolute component of any effort to "fix" our health care system - which happens to be the finest in the world.
But you've heard that before, seems to me. :popcorn:
-
That's a good point deb, and it reveals a larger folly. Apparently the leftist on that show was decrying how unfair it would be for the rich to even receive the same amount as those who've earned and contributed less over their lives. I have no doubt they'd prefer the rich contributed even more and received even less, perhaps nothing.
How do you have a discussion with such a cretin who doesn't even know the reasoning behind SS's and Medicare's creation in the first place, yet pretends to be knowledgeable about the subject?
-
People should have the right to buy health insurance in different states, not just in their home state.
Put less regulation on health care.
-
Rolling back government, i.e., Medicare and Medicaid, simply won't happen. As passionate as DefiantSix is about his position on the issue, politics will see to it that those government systems stay. Some of the nuances might change and benefits reduced, but the U.S. Congress rarely met a government program it didn't like, keeping most of those long beyond their usefulness. So I think you can put your mind at rest on that issue.
:lmao:
I just had a day-dream about a politician basing his platform on less "free money." Then I imagined a meeting of the Sub-Committee to report to the Committee for Further Reduction of Government Services regarding the end of Medicare and Social Security income deductions.
:rofl:
-
Deuce:
What did the country do for its geezers and have-nots before LBJ and his Great Society came along? That might be the larger question.
Families were tighter in those years, and neighbors more inclined to help you if you had a problem. Churches were sanctuaries in thought, word, and deed and helped people of all types. It may be a stretch, but I think the basic changes in our society as reflected in the LBJ Great Society example have resulted in a degradation of family and community that plagues us far beyond your lamenting poor people today.
Think about it. Would Mr. Jones, in 1935 in the midst of the Great Depression, calmly walk around the freezing, homeless figure of Mr. Smith completely ignoring him? Mr. Jones today worries about being sued because he tried to help someone and the act blew up in his face.
You also have to realize Deuce...that "horrible" medical care that you and all the other liberals are complaining about....is the same health care that has added on what?....15-20 years life expectency from the 1930's and probably 10-15 years since LBJ.
People are living much longer in this country than ever before and I believe....but am not positive....that the US has the highest life expectancy of any other country.
The longer people live....the greater the chance is that they will become sick with something...whether it be heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's...something.
The greater the chance of getting a life-threatening/ending disease...the greater the chance of dying.
The largest segment of the population is the Baby Boomer group ...to which I barely slide into.
When you add all those components....longer lifetime, greater chance of becoming ill, more people to die....IT WILL SKEW THE DATA!
Is the data wrong or is it right?
It's both....right because the numbers are possibly there.....wrong because the criteria components while similar are not exact.
It's very easy ....for any group that wants to present specific information .... to skew the "experiment" to get the desired results.
The problem is....those Baby Boomers that the politicians are trying to fool? They aren't as naive as their parents were, their education levels are much higher, their knowledge has been added to by all the various sources of information( 24 hr news, internet, etc) available to them these days and the politicians don't know how to deal with a population that is just not as stupid as they would like them to be.
-
1. Enforce illegal immigration laws. We can't afford treating them in our ERs.
2. Tort reform. Stop stupid lawsuits. Caveat emptor.
3. Medical savings accounts run like 401(k)s.
4. Tax deductions for health insurance payments.
5. Enable more competition. Allow the market to work.
-
1. Enforce illegal immigration laws. We can't afford treating them in our ERs.
2. Tort reform. Stop stupid lawsuits. Caveat emptor.
3. Medical savings accounts run like 401(k)s.
4. Tax deductions for health insurance payments.
5. Enable more competition. Allow the market to work.
PERFECT!!! :bow:
Want to run for President? :-)
-
The only way to stop Medicare is to stop it for those who have never worked, received a paycheck with taxes paid.
Everyone else is paying into it with every paycheck, or if self-employed, when they pay their income taxes.
I've been working and paying taxes for 40 years...I'm entitled to receive Medicare.
This is what I was getting at. More than one person said "end medicare immediately." I wanted to clarify that. I agree that a phased rollback of Medicare would be the way to go if we were to get rid of it. The problem then becomes that you have a segment of the population who has "earned" Medicare but nobody to pay for it. Someone mentioned they'd been paying taxes for 40 years, how do we pay for your healthcare without making the 16-year old at his very first job foot the bill?
People are living much longer in this country than ever before and I believe....but am not positive....that the US has the highest life expectancy of any other country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
We get our ass kicked when it comes to life expectancy. Part of it is that segment of the population that never receives much in the way of healthcare - one thing socialized medicine will do is make sure the poor go to the doctor more often.
However, I think our generally poor way of life is the biggest factor here. We eat crappy food, we don't exercise, we smoke, we drink. We crash cars and kill eachother. Compare what we eat to the Japanese, and compare our crime rates.
If you normalize for violent crimes and accidents, we move closer to the top, but we are most definitely not #1.
Which brings up one of the points i made on the first page: A key to reducing the cost of healthcare is reducing the amount of healthcare we need. It's hard to encourage healthy behavior without trampling on our rights, however. Any ideas on those lines, or do we just accept the highest obesity rates in the world as the American way of life?
-
This is what I was getting at. More than one person said "end medicare immediately." I wanted to clarify that. I agree that a phased rollback of Medicare would be the way to go if we were to get rid of it. The problem then becomes that you have a segment of the population who has "earned" Medicare but nobody to pay for it. Someone mentioned they'd been paying taxes for 40 years, how do we pay for your healthcare without making the 16-year old at his very first job foot the bill?
Yes, it did end up quite the Ponzi scheme, didn't it? Knock me over with a feather.
-
Which brings up one of the points i made on the first page: A key to reducing the cost of healthcare is reducing the amount of healthcare we need. It's hard to encourage healthy behavior without trampling on our rights, however. Any ideas on those lines, or do we just accept the highest obesity rates in the world as the American way of life?
I am by no means obese or even overweight...I don't need the government to tell me what I can or cannot eat! Nor do I think it's fair to have a "health" tax put on my Big Mac.
Try to take my chocolate away from me.....and you need to be prepared to live without your hands.
one thing socialized medicine will do is make sure the poor go to the doctor more often.
No...the government WON'T MAKE SURE that the poor go to the doctor.
You cannot force someone to go to a doctor.....regardless of how much money they have or don't have, or whether or not they have insurance or not.
Congress knows they can't force someone to get medical care.....they just hope the people they are preaching to are too stupid to think differently.
-
No, the UK for example doesn't force anyone to go to the doctor. But when healthcare is essentially free, you will go more often. A lot more.
(and by free I mean there's very little expense beyond the taxes you've already paid)
-
No, the UK for example doesn't force anyone to go to the doctor. But when healthcare is essentially free, you will go more often. A lot more.
(and by free I mean there's very little expense beyond the taxes you've already paid)
So...by your statement above....you expect EVERYONE to pay taxes.
You must not be living in the same country that I am.
-
Any ideas on those lines, or do we just accept the highest obesity rates in the world as the American way of life?
What is there to accept? That other people make stupid decisions, sometimes throughout their entire lives?
Accept it; you have no other choice. Unless, of course, the public has a vested interest in the health of every, single private citizen, due to the government's involvement in both the health care and health insurance industries. :whatever:
-
Deuce:
Which brings up one of the points i made on the first page: A key to reducing the cost of healthcare is reducing the amount of healthcare we need. It's hard to encourage healthy behavior without trampling on our rights, however. Any ideas on those lines, or do we just accept the highest obesity rates in the world as the American way of life?
Jesus, Deuce, you're making it sound as if most of us are at death's door. Aneurysm Alley. Heart Attack Boulevard.
Even in the Wiki article you quoted, the US is sitting in 35th place, out of 191 countries. The world average for life expectancy is 67.2 years, and even in lowly 35th place, the US registers 78.1, well over 10 years above the average.
Looks like all those Big Macs and Whoppers are really doin' us in, huh? :whatever:
The key to getting people to do anything is to tie in the activity such that it provides a tangible benefit to that person. People act in their own best interests. You can create all kinds of government incentives - say tax cuts for going to the gym (who's gonna track THAT stuff, Deuce?), or annual weigh-ins (same thing) or otherwise entice people to do things that medicine says are good for us, but at the end of the day, people are gonna smoke cigarettes, drink Old Grand Dad, and slam 4 Whoppers in a single sitting.
But stupidity isn't the norm - far from it.
I sure wish you'd stop with the doomsday stuff. It ain't as bad as you're trying to make it out to be. You want bad? Look at Swaziland.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
We get our ass kicked when it comes to life expectancy. Part of it is that segment of the population that never receives much in the way of healthcare - one thing socialized medicine will do is make sure the poor go to the doctor more often.
However, I think our generally poor way of life is the biggest factor here. We eat crappy food, we don't exercise, we smoke, we drink. We crash cars and kill eachother. Compare what we eat to the Japanese, and compare our crime rates.
If you normalize for violent crimes and accidents, we move closer to the top, but we are most definitely not #1.
Which brings up one of the points i made on the first page: A key to reducing the cost of healthcare is reducing the amount of healthcare we need. It's hard to encourage healthy behavior without trampling on our rights, however. Any ideas on those lines, or do we just accept the highest obesity rates in the world as the American way of life?
How about the life expectancies for those who reach a certain age? Assuming someone reaches the age of 40, where are they going to live longer, the US or Cuba? How about 50? The US or UK? 60?
Alot of our life expectancy number is brought down by deaths at young ages, to otherwise healthy individuals, through car accidents, other types of accidents, etc. Once you get past that point, you have a better chance here than anywhere else.
-
How about the life expectancies for those who reach a certain age? Assuming someone reaches the age of 40, where are they going to live longer, the US or Cuba? How about 50? The US or UK? 60?
Alot of our life expectancy number is brought down by deaths at young ages, to otherwise healthy individuals, through car accidents, other types of accidents, etc. Once you get past that point, you have a better chance here than anywhere else.
Something else that brings life expectancy down quite a bit is the way that premature baby deaths are counted by the different countries.
-
Yes, life expectancy has a zillion different variables. But in no way of measuring are we #1, and largely I think that's due to our unhealthy habits. Those unhealthy habits lead to expensive healthcare, and we end up spending a lot more to get those last couple years out than we'd otherwise have to.
Improving our health is a worthy goal. Unfortunately I don't see any easy ways of doing that. The best method I can think of is altering school curriculum in the early years to emphasize healthy eating and exercise more. Other than that, you're left with crappy options like taxing unhealthy products (regressive) or banning them outright (blatantly trampling on rights).
Tax breaks for gym memberships? Probably would cost more to track the tax breaks than the value of the breaks.
It's just random brainstorming, no need to freak out about it.
Edit: If nobody else is going to offer up solutions then I think this thread has run its course.
-
Solutions have been offered. You merely don't like them because they don't fit your world view.
-
Solutions have been offered. You merely don't like them because they don't fit your world view.
/thread.