Healthcare For All / Real Solutions

[Oddball]

Did I mention that you're also nearly as boring as booboo??

 

[Shogun]

Did I mention that you're also nearly as boring as booboo??

EXCELLENT RETORT, BIBLE SCHOLAR!





yea, I kinda figured you'd puss out like that.

 

[Maple]

I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you.

I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down. Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.

This problem can be fixed but everyone and I mean everyone is going to have to pay for health insurance, this will not be a free ride for anyone. That way there will be competition for both medical procedures and health insurance. There must be a small business plan that all small business'e can join, over 80% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no plan that they can join. That's ridiculous.

The government can not run it's own stuff, just look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security- they will screw this up royally. Just talk to anyone that comes from a nationalized health insurance country.
3 year waiting list for catarack removal.
5 years for hip or knee replacement.
Breast cancer in the Uk- they can't afford to pay for the meds. If fact, if you have cancer you might as well go home and die. Hopefully, you will be wealthy enough, like the previous poster thinks he is, that you can afford to come to the U.S for the treatment, otherwise you are toast.

This can be fixed other ways, it does not require those idiots in Washington to do this. Can you imagine a Nancy Pelosi telling you when it's okay for you to do a life saving treatment???? If this passes that's exactly what's going to happen and we will all pay and pay dearly with increases in taxes and a much, much lower standard of care. Write or call your congressmen and senators and tell them an emphatic NO WAY.

 

[Nik]

I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you.

I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down. Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.

This problem can be fixed but everyone and I mean everyone is going to have to pay for health insurance, this will not be a free ride for anyone. That way there will be competition for both medical procedures and health insurance. There must be a small business plan that all small business'e can join, over 80% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no plan that they can join. That's ridiculous.

The government can not run it's own stuff, just look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security- they will screw this up royally. Just talk to anyone that comes from a nationalized health insurance country.
3 year waiting list for catarack removal.
5 years for hip or knee replacement.
Breast cancer in the Uk- they can't afford to pay for the meds. If fact, if you have cancer you might as well go home and die. Hopefully, you will be wealthy enough, like the previous poster thinks he is, that you can afford to come to the U.S for the treatment, otherwise you are toast.

This can be fixed other ways, it does not require those idiots in Washington to do this. Can you imagine a Nancy Pelosi telling you when it's okay for you to do a life saving treatment???? If this passes that's exactly what's going to happen and we will all pay and pay dearly with increases in taxes and a much, much lower standard of care. Write or call your congressmen and senators and tell them an emphatic NO WAY.

Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid. Whoops, there goes that theory.

 

[Oddball]

Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid. Whoops, there goes that theory.

Irrelevant to the fact that they're grossly inefficient, corrupt, and cost more than threefold what they were projected to.

Whoops, there goes that lefty wingnut talking point.

 

[Nik]

Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid. Whoops, there goes that theory.

Irrelevant to the fact that they're grossly inefficient, corrupt, and cost more than threefold what they were projected to.

Whoops, there goes that lefty wingnut talking point.

Grossly inefficient? Really? Then why do they have such lower costs than private insurance?

 

[Oddball]

They have lower administrative costs.. However administration is not the only item of outlay on a balance sheet. Nonwithstanding those administrative costs, Medicare/Medicaid are still exorbitantly over their projected costs, by no less than a factor of three, and likely more.

Also, outside of administration, Medicare/Medicaid are rife with fraud, duplication of services, and abuse from stem to stern.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.

Then your bill for health care is four, five, six times what it should be because you get to make up the difference for what Medicare/Medicaid does not pay. (They pay at from a low of 10 cents to up to about 30 cents on the billed dollar.)

Well care for all eliminates much need for emergency care when those with no regular access have become catastrophes...

Incidentally, a really piss-poor excuse for a hospital I know of is currently in a scandal for paying its "on-call" Drs $250.00 an hour just to sit "on call" whether called or not.

A much better deal is where they are paid salary, period. Then, training more Drs, and killing the malpractice cash cow would also help.

 

[auditor0007]

I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness. I have though. My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care. But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.

Had one of your kids been diagnosed with leukemia, and you been denied treatment for them, tell me you would have been just fine with them dying. Your so full of shit it's coming out every orifice of your body.

Soooo....Now the cat's out of the bag!!

There is in fact something in it for you to live at the expense of everyone else.

Ideological indeed.

You're damn right the cat is out of the bag. I don't believe people should be discriminated against receiving medical care at the same price as anyone else due to their medical history. People with bad driving records pay higher rates for auto insurance, but that is due to their own actions. People who live in flood plains pay higher rates for home owners insurance because of where they choose to live. Paying more for medical care is not the same because most people don't become sick due to their own actions. So the difference cannot and should not be compared, nor should those who have medical conditions be discriminated against.

Basically, the way you see it, anyone who has any type of illness should not be able to get insurance at all because it affects the rates you will have to pay. Or they should have to pay out of pocket for the complete costs and if they can't, then fuck them. You are an ass of the highest order, when you can't see how wrong this is.

 

[DiamondDave]

HORSE SHIT

You can go on the all butter diet, smoke 6 packs a day, live in a filthy house with mold and insects everywhere... your health has a LOT with the choices you make and the actions you take

But nice try

 

[auditor0007]

I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness. I have though. My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care. But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.

What you are proposing DOES affect other people personally, since what you are proposing is to take their property by force (stealing) to alleviate your suffering. It's the same rational that the Bush Administration used to justify the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians... to whit "It's 'collateral damage' and serves the 'greater good'.

There is absolutely no altruism in attempting to justify theft just as there is no altruism in attempting to justify murder, doesn't matter whether a majority voted for the idiots that are proposing to do it or not.

Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick. Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members. Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most. That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.

I'm not referring to those who choose not to buy insurance and then become sick. I'm referring to those who purchase insurance, and then due to becoming sick are forced to pay more for their care than everyone else. That is real theft and it is discriminatory and is at the core of my issue with this entire mess. So if you want to steal from me, that just proves my point.

 

[auditor0007]

If I get any type of cancer, then I'll probably die. But hey, we're not meant to live forever. Health insurance is a scam and you're an idiot for not realizing it. I raised three kids to the age of majority without health insurance, I came from humble beginnings after dropping out of school at 15 and spending almost three years in a Texas state prison, I've done pretty damn well for myself and I don't need you nor the govt. telling me what the fuck I need. And your comment was as worthless as tits on a boar hog, but thanks for playing!

I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness. I have though. My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care. But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.

Had one of your kids been diagnosed with leukemia, and you been denied treatment for them, tell me you would have been just fine with them dying. Your so full of shit it's coming out every orifice of your body.

My wife died giving birth to my third child.

Health insurance does not guarantee a long life. If one of my children had come down with a life threatening illness then I would seek medical attention and I would pay my bill in full with cash or utilizing a payment plan. One thing you fail to realize is that in a life threatening situation you will not be turned away from any emergency room in these United States regardless of insurance. It's against the law!! I should know better than to present you with facts. I know how facts confuse people of your ilk.

In an emergency situation you are correct. However, if you need a organ transplant, you will not receive it if you don't have insurance or the cash up front. Sorry, but they won't work out a payment plan for $500,000 to $1 million because they know they'll never collect it.

No one is suggesting that having health insurance guarantees a long life. That is a stupid statement. What it does do is give a person the opportunity to receive necessary treatment that may be life saving.

 

[auditor0007]

I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare. A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense. The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.

However, there is another idea. We could allow hospitals and doctors to set up their own networks, providing their own plans that would compete with the insurance companies. Doctors would need to network with certain hospitals, but many already do this. There are some troubles with such a plan, but nothing that can't be worked out. For instance, these networks would also have to include drug plans, and they would have to work out a system of payment for out of network treatment in cases where people are traveling or find themselves in an emergency situation outside of the network.

The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.

The biggest benefit would be that the middle man would be removed, and most of those costs would be removed. Lastly, there would be some real direct competetion for services, at least in the metropolitan areas.

I keep hearing about these huge profits health insurance companies are making but from looking at annual reports from a few large health insurance companies I found that profits were less than 3% of total revenues, premiums plus return on investments, in 2007 and most lost money in 2008 because of the falling stock market. This raises the question: if the insurance companies are only keeping 3% of revenues, why would anyone think a government run insurance company would be able to deliver much more bang for the buck? Would a 3% reduction in your premium really make that much difference in your life?

I'd be interested in seeing any other statistics regarding profits as a percentage of revenues anyone else has.

The insurance companies' profits are not the real problem. The administrative costs created by them is the real problem. Those administrative costs eat up nearly 25% of total healthcare costs, while countries with single payer systems only eat up around 5%. My argument isn't so much against the insurance companies but against their discriminatory practices of forcing people out of the system whenever they become sick and is possible. Due to certain governement regulations, it isn't always possible, but under others it is, and when it is, these companies will do everything they can to stop insuring someone who is sick, or they will make the rates so high that it becomes unaffordable.

 

[auditor0007]

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution
General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You mean that one Dude? I've seen it used quite a bit, there is actually a SCOTUS decision though on healthcare "rights" granted to prisoners though.

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

Damned, now I have my answer. If I become a criminal and get sent to prison, then I'll get healthcare and I won't even have to pay for it. Shit, imagine that. We'll provide healthcare to criminals at no charge to them, but I can't get coverage that I'm willing to pay for at a reasonable price, being the price most others pay. Talk about messed up.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick. Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members. Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most. That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.

How do you figure that? rates are based on risk, that's the name of the game in Insurance if they didn't run their business that way they'd be out of the insurance business. Do you expect them to run their business at a loss? Now on the other hand if an Insurance company violates it's contractual agreement with a customer then of course the customer has the right to seek renumeration. So the "rules" are established according to the contract between the willing insurer and the willing insuree using mutually agreed upon terms. If said terms aren't acceptable to either party they should be free not to do business with one another, if you're the buyer that means you can find an alternative provider,self insure or go without coverage.

I'm not referring to those who choose not to buy insurance and then become sick. I'm referring to those who purchase insurance, and then due to becoming sick are forced to pay more for their care than everyone else. That is real theft and it is discriminatory and is at the core of my issue with this entire mess. So if you want to steal from me, that just proves my point.

How do you figure that I want to steal from you? if you are a higher risk it SHOULD cost you more for insurance. I've made it pretty clear I don't want anything from you or my fellow citizens ('cept that you respect my rights and my property of course), I'm perfectly willing to pull my own weight, furthermore I am willing to stand up for your rights as a fellow citizen if anyone else (including the gub'ment) attempts to take what's rightfully yours by force.

 

[auditor0007]

Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid. Whoops, there goes that theory.

Irrelevant to the fact that they're grossly inefficient, corrupt, and cost more than threefold what they were projected to.

Whoops, there goes that lefty wingnut talking point.

It would be very interesting to see a detailed study on Medicaid/Medicare expenditures in relation to services rendered. I would venture to guess that on the Medicare side, people are receiving quite a bit of healthcare for the money spent. It is true that these programs have become more expensive than projected, but that is because actual treatment costs have grown well above the rate of inflation for the past thirty years. It is the main reason we are paying double as a percent of GDP as we did thirty years ago.

The fact is that people on Medicare are older, and therefore have more health issues, and therefore use healthcares services much more than those in the work force. We've already had the argument that private insurance costs have gone up because it is subsidizing Medicare, and I buy into that. Medicare is underfunded, but that does not necessarily mean that is not being run efficiently.

 

[auditor0007]

I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you.

I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down. Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.

This problem can be fixed but everyone and I mean everyone is going to have to pay for health insurance, this will not be a free ride for anyone. That way there will be competition for both medical procedures and health insurance. There must be a small business plan that all small business'e can join, over 80% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no plan that they can join. That's ridiculous.

The government can not run it's own stuff, just look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security- they will screw this up royally. Just talk to anyone that comes from a nationalized health insurance country.
3 year waiting list for catarack removal.
5 years for hip or knee replacement.
Breast cancer in the Uk- they can't afford to pay for the meds. If fact, if you have cancer you might as well go home and die. Hopefully, you will be wealthy enough, like the previous poster thinks he is, that you can afford to come to the U.S for the treatment, otherwise you are toast.

This can be fixed other ways, it does not require those idiots in Washington to do this. Can you imagine a Nancy Pelosi telling you when it's okay for you to do a life saving treatment???? If this passes that's exactly what's going to happen and we will all pay and pay dearly with increases in taxes and a much, much lower standard of care. Write or call your congressmen and senators and tell them an emphatic NO WAY.

So you would support mandatory insurance for everyone? And a fair rate structure where being sick doesn't force you to pay higher premiums than everyone else? But that is so un-American. You can't force people to buy health insurance, lol.

It sounds like you would support a system such as the one in Switzerland, which I think is a very good system. But it does require mandatory participation, something conservatives hate.

 

[Soaring]

Then check the BS that Obama is feeding you and compare that to what you were previously fed. Which do you prefer?

 

[auditor0007]

HORSE SHIT

You can go on the all butter diet, smoke 6 packs a day, live in a filthy house with mold and insects everywhere... your health has a LOT with the choices you make and the actions you take

But nice try

Yea, my genetic disorder was due to my own actions. Try again. If you smoke, you pay higher rates and deservedly so. I have no problem with that.

 

[auditor0007]

Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick. Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members. Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft. It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most. That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.

How do you figure that? rates are based on risk, that's the name of the game in Insurance if they didn't run their business that way they'd be out of the insurance business. Do you expect them to run their business at a loss? Now on the other hand if an Insurance company violates it's contractual agreement with a customer then of course the customer has the right to seek renumeration. So the "rules" are established according to the contract between the willing insurer and the willing insuree using mutually agreed upon terms. If said terms aren't acceptable to either party they should be free not to do business with one another, if you're the buyer that means you can find an alternative provider,self insure or go without coverage.

I'm not referring to those who choose not to buy insurance and then become sick. I'm referring to those who purchase insurance, and then due to becoming sick are forced to pay more for their care than everyone else. That is real theft and it is discriminatory and is at the core of my issue with this entire mess. So if you want to steal from me, that just proves my point.

How do you figure that I want to steal from you? if you are a higher risk it SHOULD cost you more for insurance. I've made it pretty clear I don't want anything from you or my fellow citizens ('cept that you respect my rights and my property of course), I'm perfectly willing to pull my own weight, furthermore I am willing to stand up for your rights as a fellow citizen if anyone else (including the gub'ment) attempts to take what's rightfully yours by force.

Yes, rates are based on initial risk. I had insurance with Anthem in Colorado. Anthem is owned by Wellpoint. I paid my premiums and became sick. Now, I had to move to Ohio. Anthem is in Ohio also, but they operate as a separate company, yet they are also owned by Wellpoint. I had insurance with this company, purchased before I became high risk. Now they will only offer me a new policy at three times the premium with a deductible five times higher than my old policy.

That is discrimination. That is one way the insurance companies drive people out so they don't have to cover those costs. The insurance companies will do anything they can to get someone off of their books who is ill. It's in their best interest obviously. The thing is that healthcare is not like auto insurance or homeowners insurance. People who choose to purchase and pay for insurance should not be driven out and thrown to the wolves because they become sick, and this is what you support. So long as it's good for the insurance companies, screw the people they are supposed to serve.

I just laugh at those like you because if you were in my shoes, you would be pissed too, yet you'll defend these bastards to the end so long as it is not you who is being affected.