Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyone believe that number? especially in light of it only being a "down-payment" on the idea of socialized healthcare.

Yeah I believe it. It's just not all of it Not even close.

Tennessee has a program of universal coverage called Tenncare. It was designed for people who could not get insurance due to preexisting conditions or for financial reasons. After it was deterimined that this program alone would consume over 30% of the state budget it was scaled back immensely. But not without a big legal fight. Once you go down this road there is no turning back.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Because their life even with a higher tax burden would be better than just making 50K a year.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Tax the hell? You mean repealing tax cuts back to Reagan era levels? That Reagan was such a bastard.

We're not talking about welfare receiving baby machines.

Maybe if you dump your bullshit programming you would start to understand what this is all about.

 

[ericlp]

I think it should be free like canada. I mean if we gonna spend the money on this crap why not just make it free for all?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Tax the hell? You mean repealing tax cuts back to Reagan era levels? That Reagan was such a bastard.

We're not talking about welfare receiving baby machines.

Maybe if you dump your bullshit programming you would start to understand what this is all about.

Err, top tax rate was 28% in Reagan's years.

Nice article in the WSJ. You could tax the top 1% at 100% of income and it wouldn't close the gap for Obama's so called 'priorities'.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Oh please. You have NO IDEA what some people go through. You hit a bump in the road, but you managed. Did you even have to declare bankruptcy? I assume not or you would have said so.

It is you ignorance (and a little arrogance too) that is showing.

It's CAD. He has no idea what a catastrophic illness really is. A premature baby and a wife that can't work? Sure, that's trouble for anyone. I don't want to hear catastrophic though. As I've said in other threads, when I was diagnosed with cancer last year at the ripe old age of 28, I racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in the span of 12 days. Not only that, but the chemotherapy regimen I had to undergo was 9 hours a day, 8 days out of every 21. When you add in the week or so of vomiting, anemia, and pain caused by the drugs and the medication necessary to repair your compromised immune system, you're talking 2 weeks out of every 3 out of commission. How are you going to work your way around that one? THAT'S a catastrophic illness.

As for Skoorb's mention and others, if you look at the US' per capita allocation of doctors and nurses it is lower than countries with UHC, but not that much lower. (about 15% for doctors, and about 2% for nurses) This is certainly an issue to be addressed, but it's hardly insurmountable. In addition, preventative care, like say with cancer for one, can massively reduce the cost of an illness to the system as a whole.

Our system has proved unsustainable, it's on its way out. Everyone here pretty much knows that at least a partially socialized system is in our future, it just depends on how long it will take this one to collapse. It's been proven over and over again with examples from all sorts of other OECD countries to provide better care at less cost.

Carmen813 and eskimospy stories are the real reason for UHC. Most insured people have insurance through their place of work. If they have an illness that requires several months of recovery time, they cannot work, if they cannot work, they are likely to get fired, if they are fired, they lose their health insurance and they are screwed. I had a burst appendix with complications as a student, very minor stuff compared to what Carmen813 and eskimospy had to go through. Yet I still had to have two surgeries and spent nearly 3 weeks in hospital. When I left hospital they left plastic tubes sticking out of my stomach to drain excess bodily fluids, I had to spend another month recovering. I was lucky because my parents insurance covered me, had I been working full time already, who knows how my employer would have reacted to my forced two month leave. Or what if someone gets cancer with one employer, beats it, but wants to switch jobs afterwards? They are screwed again because by switching employers they have to switch insurance carriers and cancer would be a "pre-existing" condition, so if their cancer comes back they're screwed. Hell, they don't even have to switch jobs to lose their benefits, smaller employers often switch insurance carriers, same result, the new insurance carrier will refuse to cover the employee's pre-existing condition.

Sadly, very few posters in this thread talk about this problem. They talk about obesity and illegals and all the ways the government could possibly screw up the UHC, however they completely ignore that even a hard working man who has done nothing wrong, been taking care of his body, has been working to better his life and has been diligently paying health insurance can be screwed up so badly. You are one burst appendix away from unemployment and possibly financial ruin.

Their stories don't mean we have to buy into socialist UHC. A simple change to allow people to keep/have insurance policies not tied to place of employment.
You see, the RATIONAL "fix" is to have "open" Insurance risk pools not tied to employement so people can share the risk with people that are like them instead of subsidizing those who are high risk/abuse the system. It really wouldn't be difficult to do but it seems the libs don't want that because it gives the power of choice to the individual and would prevent UHI from becoming a reality.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Their stories don't mean we have to buy into socialist UHC. A simple change to allow people to keep/have insurance policies not tied to place of employment.
You see, the RATIONAL "fix" is to have "open" Insurance risk pools not tied to employement so people can share the risk with people that are like them instead of subsidizing those who are high risk/abuse the system. It really wouldn't be difficult to do but it seems the libs don't want that because it gives the power of choice to the individual and would prevent UHI from becoming a reality.

What if your current insurance carrier goes out of business?
What if your company offers you position overseas but your existing insurance carrier does not cover you overseas, do you drop your current insurance and risk your life because your "pre-existing" condition will not be covered once you enroll again, or do you keep paying for two insurances?
What if another company offers better rates but you can't switch because they won't cover pre-existing conditions?
What if your current insurance company jacks up the rate and you can't switch because no one would cover pre-existing condition so you're locked in with that carrier if you want to get treatement for your condition?
What if you're fired/laid off and your new employer won't subsidize your existing plan so you still end up paying full price?


Simply making the plans portable without eliminating "pre-existing" conditions will do nothing.

Insurance pools didn't work out either.

 

[Xavier434]

Pork is not defined by whether you think an idea will or will not work. Conservatives have been far too liberal with that word lately.

I hope it works. We need good health care reform. I don't view trying to improve healthcare as pork at all. There are many good ways and many bad ways to reform the system, but simply dedicating money in order to try does not make it pork just because you do not support the concern.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Their stories don't mean we have to buy into socialist UHC. A simple change to allow people to keep/have insurance policies not tied to place of employment.
You see, the RATIONAL "fix" is to have "open" Insurance risk pools not tied to employement so people can share the risk with people that are like them instead of subsidizing those who are high risk/abuse the system. It really wouldn't be difficult to do but it seems the libs don't want that because it gives the power of choice to the individual and would prevent UHI from becoming a reality.

What if your current insurance carrier goes out of business?
What if your company offers you position overseas but your existing insurance carrier does not cover you overseas, do you drop your current insurance and risk your life because your "pre-existing" condition will not be covered once you enroll again, or do you keep paying for two insurances?
What if another company offers better rates but you can't switch because they won't cover pre-existing conditions?
What if your current insurance company jacks up the rate and you can't switch because no one would cover pre-existing condition so you're locked in with that carrier if you want to get treatement for your condition?
What if you're fired/laid off and your new employer won't subsidize your existing plan so you still end up paying full price?


Simply making the plans portable without eliminating "pre-existing" conditions will do nothing.

Insurance pools didn't work out either.

And here we have yet another person who seems to suggest the current system sucks but yet whines about rational change based on a list of silly "what ifs"

1. You get a different one - JUST LIKE YOUR CAR INSURER OR HOME INSURER.
2. You don't take the position? Again, if INSURANCE is a personal choice and responsibility - then YOU as the buyer have to weigh the pros/cons of making ANY move/change that could affect your INSURANCE. It's that way right now except you have ZERO choice.
3. You don't switch? Just because there is somewhere "cheaper" doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to it. Hell, IMO if INSURANCE companies could create risk pools(meaning people of like risk would have approx the same coverage options and pricing) then your whining about "pre-existing" would be moot since you will be in the risk category appropriate for your situation - thus would not be denied.
4. And that's different from now how? You are STUCK with what your company provides no matter how much the rates go up. And again look to #3 for your incessant whining about "pre-existing".
5. cry? WTF. What about right now? You lose your job - you basically lose your insurance. If it was mobile you wouldn't have gaps(and our "uninsured" numbers would be more accurate). Who says a company has to pay anything for your insurance? It's called a BENEFIT for a reason. You are not ENTITLED to benefits your employer doesn't offer. Sheesh.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Their stories don't mean we have to buy into socialist UHC. A simple change to allow people to keep/have insurance policies not tied to place of employment.
You see, the RATIONAL "fix" is to have "open" Insurance risk pools not tied to employement so people can share the risk with people that are like them instead of subsidizing those who are high risk/abuse the system. It really wouldn't be difficult to do but it seems the libs don't want that because it gives the power of choice to the individual and would prevent UHI from becoming a reality.

What if your current insurance carrier goes out of business?
What if your company offers you position overseas but your existing insurance carrier does not cover you overseas, do you drop your current insurance and risk your life because your "pre-existing" condition will not be covered once you enroll again, or do you keep paying for two insurances?
What if another company offers better rates but you can't switch because they won't cover pre-existing conditions?
What if your current insurance company jacks up the rate and you can't switch because no one would cover pre-existing condition so you're locked in with that carrier if you want to get treatement for your condition?
What if you're fired/laid off and your new employer won't subsidize your existing plan so you still end up paying full price?


Simply making the plans portable without eliminating "pre-existing" conditions will do nothing.

Insurance pools didn't work out either.

I hear what you're saying..."pre-existing" conditions also needs to be fixed along with the "portability" issues. We have a good healthcare system that just needs needs some tweaking...I think it would be a huge mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Pork is not defined by whether you think an idea will or will not work. Conservatives have been far too liberal with that word lately.

I hope it works. We need good health care reform. I don't view trying to improve healthcare as pork at all. There are many good ways and many bad ways to reform the system, but simply dedicating money in order to try does not make it pork just because you do not support the concern.

I think it's more of a timing issue than anything that's so troubling. Here we are in the middle of a major financial crisis...spending money like drunk sailors on shore leave to 'stimulate' the economy...and then we're going to spend more $$$ on top of that as if we have an unlimited supply of money. We're about 40 days into this administration and this spending is already getting way out of hand...we and our children will pay dearly I fear. When Obama was talking about 'responsibility' the other night...he sure as hell wasn't talking about fiscal responsibility on the spending side of the equation.

 

[moparacer]

I think it should be free like canada. I mean if we gonna spend the money on this crap why not just make it free for all?

Just like paying my home mortgage on time, suddenly I realize that paying for health insurance for myself and my family for the last 10 years, 100 percent of which I never used, evidently wasn't the smartest thing.......

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What The op states is what you are using 634 over 10 years. What I am telling you is that the cost of insuring or providing health care for all americans will cost (at the current level of consumption) at least 1.25 trillion per year. I would guess that consumption will increase dramatically. The 634 billion over 10 years wouldn't even cover the administrative costs of uhc.

Where are you getting this $1.25 trillion figure?

What are Americans currently (privatly and publicly) spending on health insurance?

Edit:
The thing that bothers me about asking the "afluent" to give back their tax cuts from the Bush years is that those making between $100k and $500k are most likely AMT tax payers anyway, so they really saw none of this "tax cut", and thus are being asked to pay back what they did not really receive in the first place. The people that got the big tax breaks are those that make much of their money through passive income.

Personally, if you're going to go for something like this system, you should ask EVERYONE to give a little more, even if the people at just above the poverty line are giving $1.

A new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) report has revealed that in the year 2009, it is believed that the U.S. is going to spend $2.5 trillion on health care.
The 1.25 trillion I was using is private sector current expenditure on health care, not coverage.

It doesn't matter what private+government insurance costs are when figuring the cost of UHC. Under UHC, Coverage = cost. We are talking about 17.5 to 20 % of GDP that government wants to completely nationalize.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I hear what you're saying..."pre-existing" conditions also needs to be fixed along with the "portability" issues. We have a good healthcare system that just needs needs some tweaking...I think it would be a huge mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point.

I still don't think this will be enough. Here's what I'd try first:
1. Eliminate "pre-conditions" and "coverage exclusions" from insurance policies. A person should get treated if he is paying insurance.
2. Eliminate in and out of network provisions. A person should be able to choose any doctor he wants. This might also cut down on the number of good for nothing doctors who don't know what they're doing.
3. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors, let market sort itself out. It is unacceptable that I have to wait a month to get a doctor appointment so that AMA can protect his multiple six figure salary.



Still it is infuriating to see CAD actually trying to argue in favor of "pre-existing" condition clauses. I start to wonder where it all went wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I hear what you're saying..."pre-existing" conditions also needs to be fixed along with the "portability" issues. We have a good healthcare system that just needs needs some tweaking...I think it would be a huge mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point.

I still don't think this will be enough. Here's what I'd try first:
1. Eliminate "pre-conditions" and "coverage exclusions" from insurance policies. A person should get treated if he is paying insurance.
2. Eliminate in and out of network provisions. A person should be able to choose any doctor he wants. This might also cut down on the number of good for nothing doctors who don't know what they're doing.
3. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors, let market sort itself out. It is unacceptable that I have to wait a month to get a doctor appointment so that AMA can protect his multiple six figure salary.



Still it is infuriating to see CAD actually trying to argue in favor of "pre-existing" condition clauses. I start to wonder where it all went wrong.

No where did I argue in favor of "pre-existing condition clauses". Learn to read.

Your 1 and 2 would dramatically increase INSURANCE prices - thus cost/risk shifting to others.
3 is something I can agree with.


Now back to the "pre-existing" whining. If you are at higher risk due to lifestyle etc then why should you be in the same category as a healthy person who presents little risk? It's really no different than life insurance - it's a hedge against death/health. So if true risk pools(based on lifestyle and other risk factors) were created then there would be no "pre-existing" clauses since you'd just be in the appropriate risk category for the Insurer.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Pork is not defined by whether you think an idea will or will not work. Conservatives have been far too liberal with that word lately.

I hope it works. We need good health care reform. I don't view trying to improve healthcare as pork at all. There are many good ways and many bad ways to reform the system, but simply dedicating money in order to try does not make it pork just because you do not support the concern.

I think it's more of a timing issue than anything that's so troubling. Here we are in the middle of a major financial crisis...spending money like drunk sailors on shore leave to 'stimulate' the economy...and then we're going to spend more $$$ on top of that as if we have an unlimited supply of money. We're about 40 days into this administration and this spending is already getting way out of hand...we and our children will pay dearly I fear. When Obama was talking about 'responsibility' the other night...he sure as hell wasn't talking about fiscal responsibility on the spending side of the equation.

You might be right about the timing. I am unsure to be honest. Health care is one of those things that I value far more than money so it sort of stands out in a different way to me.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I hear what you're saying..."pre-existing" conditions also needs to be fixed along with the "portability" issues. We have a good healthcare system that just needs needs some tweaking...I think it would be a huge mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point.

I still don't think this will be enough. Here's what I'd try first:
1. Eliminate "pre-conditions" and "coverage exclusions" from insurance policies. A person should get treated if he is paying insurance.
2. Eliminate in and out of network provisions. A person should be able to choose any doctor he wants. This might also cut down on the number of good for nothing doctors who don't know what they're doing.
3. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors, let market sort itself out. It is unacceptable that I have to wait a month to get a doctor appointment so that AMA can protect his multiple six figure salary.



Still it is infuriating to see CAD actually trying to argue in favor of "pre-existing" condition clauses. I start to wonder where it all went wrong.

Sounds good on the surface but the devil is in the details. Pre-conditions...what prevents people from not purchasing insurance until they become ill and need it then? Eliminate coverage exclusions...then we all pay for purely elective surguries such as breast implants and tummy tucks? Network provisions...agree as long as the system is built in a way to minimize fraud potential. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors...this willl probably increase the number of "good for nothing doctors".

You know...you said nothing about tort reform and insurance costs. Many doctor's don't make as much money as you might think....and they certainly work their butts off to get to the point they can practice.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Oh please. You have NO IDEA what some people go through. You hit a bump in the road, but you managed. Did you even have to declare bankruptcy? I assume not or you would have said so.

It is you ignorance (and a little arrogance too) that is showing.

It's CAD. He has no idea what a catastrophic illness really is. A premature baby and a wife that can't work? Sure, that's trouble for anyone. I don't want to hear catastrophic though. As I've said in other threads, when I was diagnosed with cancer last year at the ripe old age of 28, I racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in the span of 12 days. Not only that, but the chemotherapy regimen I had to undergo was 9 hours a day, 8 days out of every 21. When you add in the week or so of vomiting, anemia, and pain caused by the drugs and the medication necessary to repair your compromised immune system, you're talking 2 weeks out of every 3 out of commission. How are you going to work your way around that one? THAT'S a catastrophic illness.

As for Skoorb's mention and others, if you look at the US' per capita allocation of doctors and nurses it is lower than countries with UHC, but not that much lower. (about 15% for doctors, and about 2% for nurses) This is certainly an issue to be addressed, but it's hardly insurmountable. In addition, preventative care, like say with cancer for one, can massively reduce the cost of an illness to the system as a whole.

Our system has proved unsustainable, it's on its way out. Everyone here pretty much knows that at least a partially socialized system is in our future, it just depends on how long it will take this one to collapse. It's been proven over and over again with examples from all sorts of other OECD countries to provide better care at less cost.

Carmen813 and eskimospy stories are the real reason for UHC. Most insured people have insurance through their place of work. If they have an illness that requires several months of recovery time, they cannot work, if they cannot work, they are likely to get fired, if they are fired, they lose their health insurance and they are screwed. I had a burst appendix with complications as a student, very minor stuff compared to what Carmen813 and eskimospy had to go through. Yet I still had to have two surgeries and spent nearly 3 weeks in hospital. When I left hospital they left plastic tubes sticking out of my stomach to drain excess bodily fluids, I had to spend another month recovering. I was lucky because my parents insurance covered me, had I been working full time already, who knows how my employer would have reacted to my forced two month leave. Or what if someone gets cancer with one employer, beats it, but wants to switch jobs afterwards? They are screwed again because by switching employers they have to switch insurance carriers and cancer would be a "pre-existing" condition, so if their cancer comes back they're screwed. Hell, they don't even have to switch jobs to lose their benefits, smaller employers often switch insurance carriers, same result, the new insurance carrier will refuse to cover the employee's pre-existing condition.

Sadly, very few posters in this thread talk about this problem. They talk about obesity and illegals and all the ways the government could possibly screw up the UHC, however they completely ignore that even a hard working man who has done nothing wrong, been taking care of his body, has been working to better his life and has been diligently paying health insurance can be screwed up so badly. You are one burst appendix away from unemployment and possibly financial ruin.

Their stories don't mean we have to buy into socialist UHC. A simple change to allow people to keep/have insurance policies not tied to place of employment.
You see, the RATIONAL "fix" is to have "open" Insurance risk pools not tied to employement so people can share the risk with people that are like them instead of subsidizing those who are high risk/abuse the system. It really wouldn't be difficult to do but it seems the libs don't want that because it gives the power of choice to the individual and would prevent UHI from becoming a reality.

You do not understand the problem faced by those with pre-existing conditions, and frankly I sincerely hope you never do.

The fact that you are using the terms "high-risk" with people who "abuse the system" in the same sentence is absurd. Apples and oranges. Abuses of the system can be fixed with regulation. "High-risk" individuals cannot be, they will always exist, and most of those people did nothing wrong.

Do you even realize what your idea what lead to? It would lead to private plans filled only with healthy people, who would be removed from the plan when they become sick. Then you would have other plans filled with only sick people (and I used the word "filled" lightly, since it would be incredibly expensive and mos people couldn't afford it) that cost insane amounts of money. It would lead frankly to further discrimination against the ill.

You just don't get it.

I agree private insurance should be portable from company to company, but what you are suggesting regarding risk pools will only make a bad situation worse. People living longer, healthier lives = more people in the work force = more production hours = more goods and services provided = more money exchanged = higher standard of living = stronger economy.

I agree that when it comes to things like obesity there is a large degree of personal responsibility involved. Of course you won't get anywhere near 100% elimination, but there are steps we can take as a nation to confront the problem.

As for the argument that "liberals don't want to give individuals the power of choice," that is a bunch of bookaka. Go read Obama's plan before you starting spewing your talking points from the 1990s. If you don't have the time, energy, or willingness to educate yourself about it, here are the highlights:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

• Give those with pre-existing conditions a choice!

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

• Give individuals the choice between private or public plans

Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

• Bust up monopolies in the industry so individuals have more choices

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/health_care/

What Obama is proposing is incredibly far from socialized medicine (for starter's, go find me the word "mandated coverage" in his plans), yet so many individuals on this board refuse to go past the republican talking points and face reality. He is offering us a public plan that all can buy in. He isn't removing private insurance at all, he is trying to make it more competitive. If he succeeds, it will do a tremendous amount to remove the problems with the current system and to make private industry more competitive again.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Tax the hell? You mean repealing tax cuts back to Reagan era levels? That Reagan was such a bastard.

We're not talking about welfare receiving baby machines.

Maybe if you dump your bullshit programming you would start to understand what this is all about.

Err, top tax rate was 28% in Reagan's years.

Nice article in the WSJ. You could tax the top 1% at 100% of income and it wouldn't close the gap for Obama's so called 'priorities'.

You have a "loose" definition of Reagan's years.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
HEALTHCARE!?!

PORKULOUS!!!!

/s

I suppose that was a generous characterization. A planetarium buried somewhere in Chicago might be useful at least if I ever visit.

Health care for unproductives....well...

they already get healthcare, douche. Get your facts straight.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I hear what you're saying..."pre-existing" conditions also needs to be fixed along with the "portability" issues. We have a good healthcare system that just needs needs some tweaking...I think it would be a huge mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point.

I still don't think this will be enough. Here's what I'd try first:
1. Eliminate "pre-conditions" and "coverage exclusions" from insurance policies. A person should get treated if he is paying insurance.
2. Eliminate in and out of network provisions. A person should be able to choose any doctor he wants. This might also cut down on the number of good for nothing doctors who don't know what they're doing.
3. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors, let market sort itself out. It is unacceptable that I have to wait a month to get a doctor appointment so that AMA can protect his multiple six figure salary.



Still it is infuriating to see CAD actually trying to argue in favor of "pre-existing" condition clauses. I start to wonder where it all went wrong.

Sounds good on the surface but the devil is in the details. Pre-conditions...what prevents people from not purchasing insurance until they become ill and need it then? Eliminate coverage exclusions...then we all pay for purely elective surguries such as breast implants and tummy tucks? Network provisions...agree as long as the system is built in a way to minimize fraud potential. Eliminate restriction on the number of doctors...this willl probably increase the number of "good for nothing doctors".

You know...you said nothing about tort reform and insurance costs. Many doctor's don't make as much money as you might think....and they certainly work their butts off to get to the point they can practice.

I agree that given the amount of time they dedicate to education, many doctors are underpaid. You brought up some good problems with his plan, although he does plan to do something about preventing insurers from overcharged MDs for malpractice insurance. The fact that you found legitimate problems for the plan shouldn't act as a stopping block though, it's legitimate feedback that should be incorporated to address the concerns you brought up. As far as I know, his coverage exclusions apply only to preventative care services, such as cancer screening.

The only problem you brought up that I do not see a solution for is the pre-existing condition exploitation. My suspicion is that those individuals would be in the extreme minority compared to people who have tried to get insurance and cannot. Is this really a case where we should prevent access to the majority because of a minority?

Many insurance policies have a duration of time right now that must pass before they begin coverage. They also have caps on how much money they will pay out of over the course of a lifetime. The solution may lie in manipulating those variables.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Tax the hell? You mean repealing tax cuts back to Reagan era levels? That Reagan was such a bastard.

We're not talking about welfare receiving baby machines.

Maybe if you dump your bullshit programming you would start to understand what this is all about.

Err, top tax rate was 28% in Reagan's years.

Nice article in the WSJ. You could tax the top 1% at 100% of income and it wouldn't close the gap for Obama's so called 'priorities'.

You have a "loose" definition of Reagan's years.

Its winnar111, he doesn't understand simple things like facts. Understanding facts means you have to do more then simply copy-paste stuff from Free Republic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

I agree that given the amount of time they dedicate to education, many doctors are underpaid. You brought up some good problems with his plan, although he does plan to do something about preventing insurers from overcharged MDs for malpractice insurance. The fact that you found legitimate problems for the plan shouldn't act as a stopping block though, it's legitimate feedback that should be incorporated to address the concerns you brought up. As far as I know, his coverage exclusions apply only to preventative care services, such as cancer screening.

The only problem you brought up that I do not see a solution for is the pre-existing condition exploitation. My suspicion is that those individuals would be in the extreme minority compared to people who have tried to get insurance and cannot. Is this really a case where we should prevent access to the majority because of a minority?

Many insurance policies have a duration of time right now that must pass before they begin coverage. They also have caps on how much money they will pay out of over the course of a lifetime. The solution may lie in manipulating those variables.

According to the CBO, malpractice awards and insurance costs comprise less than 2% of US healthcare costs, and that while limiting awards would reduce premiums (obviously) they are only one of many factors such as companies raising rates to account for declining investment income elsewhere.

Simply put, tort reform would have a negligible effect on US healthcare costs and it would screw up a fundamental right to seek compensation for injury.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
IMO, what we really need is EXTREME litigation reform in this country, especially as it applies to health care.

I bet the exponential growth in health care premiums mirrors that of the amount of litigation insurance required.

How about...

1) A lawsuit cannot go before a judge/real jury until it passes unanimously from a "pre-jury" of twelve, randomly selected citizen peers. A litmus test if you will to prevent blatant idiocy and lottery seekers.
2) Limit compensation to some amount, say $500K.
3) A doctor gets two strikes. After one lawsuit, s/he gets a warning. After the second, s/he loses her/his license.
4) A hospital gets 3 strikes per year. Three malpractice lawsuits a year is it. Otherwise, closed down.

Good luck with that. People sue for the most arbitrary things. Almost every doctor I know (and I am in Medical School, so I am sure it is more than you) has been sued or threatened to be sued well into the double digits. People expect miracles. They want Gammy to stay alive for ever and when she doesn't it is the doctors fault. OBGYNs have it the worst. People sue over ugly babies (I wish I was making that up, in my med ethics class we read and discussed a trail claiming that emergency procedures meant to save both mother and child made the child ugly and they were suing for future psychological damage).

Lets not forget that hospitals have enough trouble staying open the way it is.

I 100% agree with your first idea and it is one that is used in some midwestern states (also some of the best places to be a doctor because malpractice insurance is cheap and claimless lawsuits are quickly weeded out).

The problem with our medical system is lack of access to primary and preventative care and overexpectations for interventionist care. We expect a pill.

The next problem is antiquated methods of record keeping and sharing information between doctors and hospitals (and thankfully a good deal of the promise Obama did make during the election dealt with addressing this issue). This causes huge problems which leads to bad healthcare. It also makes billing a nightmare.

Finally, as a future doctor, the next problem is private insurance company controlled medicine. The single biggest complaint I regularly hear from doctors I have interacted with is decisions on care being made by people without medical licenses.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.

this is the exact problem. they should use that money to build new medical schools and pay people to become doctors. the price will take care of itself as we flood the market with doctors. and instead of these greedy leechy fuckers playing golf half the week while pulling in $250k reading xrays, they will be on par with the rest of us professionals.

Hey Asshole. Fuck off. Next time your life is on the line why don't you stay home.