Here is the problem with the healthcare debate at the moment

[auditor0007]

Just to name a few:

- Ending of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions

That is a favorite of Democrats and other defenders of this debacle. the problem is that coverage was rarely denied based on those conditions. Rates were higher if a person had a condition that could rise the cost of their health care, and was denied of they failed to disclose it.

- Preventing being dropped from your insurance when struck with a major illness.

Another claim that falls short in the fact department.



Which will raise rates for everyone, even those who prefer to have that limited coverage.

I can understand why this can cause problems, I just fail to understand why people whine about it. They chose the policy that had limited coverage, and then expect the insurer to keep paying when they have expenses they do not anticipate. My sympathy for this problem is rather low.



No it does not. What it does is lower the cost ofr the people that use insurance the most, not for everyone. Expanding the risk pool only benefits the insurance companies, why do you think they were so solidly behind the mandate.

- Closing the Medicare donut hole which immediately helps seniors with their prescription drug costs

That could have been accomplished without a 2000 page bill.

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees

I thought you were opposed to the status quo. Most experts, including those who support this law, tell me that the primary factor that drives up health care costs is the fact that people are not responsible for the costs. Expanding that problem to more people is not going to fix anything.

Do you really know what you are talking about? Let me tell you something; insurance comapanies deny coverage for the smallest of things, unless of course, you are part of a group plan. Then they cannot deny coverage. In some instances, they can deny coverage for a certain period of time, usually six to twelve months, for any pre-existing conditions. But this is only true for those who receive their insurance through a group plan, which means their employer. If someone is self-employed, they will deny you for a sneeze.

I had health insurance in Colorado. It was a private plan, as I am self-employed. Due to personal reasons, I had to move out of state. When I moved, I lost my health insurance because I had a pre-existing condition. Had I worked for a company, HIPAA laws would not have allowed the insurance companies to deny me, but since I was self-employed and had a private plan, they just said "sorry, you are too high of a risk". And get this, I couldn't even get insurance through the same company that insured me in Colorado. Wellpoint is the parent company of Anthem in both Colorado and Ohio. But since they are actually separate companies, they chose to deny me.

But here is where things get really screwed up and I have to wonder if the insurance companies even have a clue as to what is going on. I kept my Colorado insurance for six months, which is the longest period of time you can keep coverage from another state. After that point, they will not cover you if they find out you have been living out of state for a period of more than six months. So, I quit paying my premiums. I had no choice.

Here is the kicker though. Anthem wouldn't give me insurance in Ohio, but for the next six months Anthem of Colorado kept calling me trying to get me back as a customer, saying that I could get the same coverage I had at the same price. Of course when I told them I no longer lived in Colorado, they understood they could not. Still, another person would call me the next month offering me the same deal. They knew I had a pre-existing condition, but they still wanted me back.

The bottom line is that if you have a pre-existing condition, you can get coverage, if you do it through an employer. But if you must purchase a private plan on your own, you are screwed. They won't even take you if you have diabetes. The problem with this entire debate is that most people who have opinions don't know much about the actual workings of the health insurance industry. Everyone who has insurance throught their employer is pretty much satisfied, because they are not paying the bulk of their premiums.

I know one thing that would change everything overnight, and I'm pretty certain it would be for the better. Quit forcing employers to be responsible for covering their employees health insurance. Hell, make it illegal, and that includes government employees also. Make it so every American had to purchase health insurance on their own. Then you would see the shit hit the fan as people would actually get a better understanding of the true costs.

 

[30x90]

We get it, you don't like to read. Maybe they should make this bill in to a movie, that way you can better understand it. But then you'll probably just complain that it's longer than 2 hours and if they can make "Ernest goes to Camp" in less then 2 hours, then all movies worth a damn should do the same. Am I right?

wow...
From dodging every question to changing the subject you've finally managed to completely abandon even mentioning the topic at all.

If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it.
I am not going to argue with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.

I have already asked pages ago to give us a point by point evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of this 2000 page document. and share with us your one of a kind insight on the bill.

You continuously evade and dodge because you don't really know, yet INSIST that you have a unique understanding of the bill while offering nothing of substance.
If you did not understand me just now, go back and re-read, and if you still do not understand, then you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should go elsewhere, good day sir.

And I already told you that I already posted in this very thread some of the benefits of what is in this bill.

See my earlier post

Those are benefits. You want drawbacks too, sure....

This bill doesn't include a true public option which would have introduced REAL competition in to the marketplace and resulted in a further lowering of costs. So this bill didn't go far enough to lower costs for consumers.

Happy now?

So what are the other 1999 pages for?
Words have meaning, you know...especially when lawyers are involved.
All you did was gloss over the dem. talking points, essentially..let's go deeper.

Look, all I'm saying is that VERY PROBABLY no one in the entire country knows what all is in there nor the overall effects all of the changes will cause..."blowback"..."peripheral damage" are the military terms for damage caused by implementing a plan.

If the leaders of this country admit they do not know the consequences nor content of the bill...IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I UNDERSTAND OR NOT...I already know it won't be good. I don't need to wade through purposely convoluted legal descriptions, terminology and jargon.



Thanks for the conversation.

 

[RDD_1210]

wow...
From dodging every question to changing the subject you've finally managed to completely abandon even mentioning the topic at all.

If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it.
I am not going to argue with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.

I have already asked pages ago to give us a point by point evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of this 2000 page document. and share with us your one of a kind insight on the bill.

You continuously evade and dodge because you don't really know, yet INSIST that you have a unique understanding of the bill while offering nothing of substance.
If you did not understand me just now, go back and re-read, and if you still do not understand, then you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should go elsewhere, good day sir.

And I already told you that I already posted in this very thread some of the benefits of what is in this bill.

See my earlier post

Those are benefits. You want drawbacks too, sure....

This bill doesn't include a true public option which would have introduced REAL competition in to the marketplace and resulted in a further lowering of costs. So this bill didn't go far enough to lower costs for consumers.

Happy now?

So what are the other 1999 pages for?
Words have meaning, you know...especially when lawyers are involved.
All you did was gloss over the dem. talking points, essentially..let's go deeper.

Look, all I'm saying is that VERY PROBABLY no one in the entire country knows what all is in there nor the overall effects all of the changes will cause..."blowback"..."peripheral damage" are the military terms for damage caused by implementing a plan.

If the leaders of this country admit they do not know the consequences nor content of the bill...IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I UNDERSTAND OR NOT...I already know it won't be good. I don't need to wade through purposely convoluted legal descriptions, terminology and jargon.



Thanks for the conversation.

No one can predict the future, but we can learn from the past. Hence why this bill was needed. Will it ever be amended and improved? Of course it will, but you have to start somewhere and thats what this bill does. It's a starting point to fixing a MAJOR issue facing our country. But you're writing off because you don't trust government and its too much to read. That's your fault, not ours.

I gave you positives and negatives of this bill because I took the time to read and make an opinion, I really think you should do the same.

 

[RDD_1210]

That is all the more reason to remedy the problem by allowing employers to offer insurance vouchers rather than limiting the choices of the employees by choosing a plan for them.

How would employers offering vouchers be beneficial? The best way to keep costs down is to pool together and purchase as a group, which is the benefit of getting your insurance through a plan picked by your employer. If everyone was given vouchers and went to pick any plan they wanted, they would lose all that leverage of the group and the price would increase.

You're right. I don't know who would choose to buy a plan like that, IF they actually know what they were buying. Maybe someone that was willing to accept the risk I suppose.

But thats the thing, a person with a crappy plan like that isn't assuming the risk....the rest of us are. That person will still end up in the hospital and will still be treated but that risk he took by having a shitty plan will effect us because our costs will increase due to his risk taking.

 

[auditor0007]

Ok, since you say the 2nd group is the bigger one and thus more important to address, lets discuss that.

Your suggestion is to expand medicare/medicaid. So it sounds like you are in favor of a government backed insurance option for all those people. That's actually a more liberal idea then what this legislation even is. I don't disagree with it, but you realize now what we're doing is putting people on private insurance plans and not gov't plans. Do you feel this is wrong and we should have all of them on government run plans?

I don't know that it's more liberal per se. It's the most practical while maintaining some level of compassion for those in that situtation. As far as specifics go I'm not sure you're right about the private insurance part. At least not completely. From what I have read it seems it looked to me like only Part C has a private insurance component, and maybe part D. Maybe you make a restriction, in order to encourage financial responsibility, that says you are not eligible for medicare C or D until age 65.

We also continue to look at ways of reducing the costs of actual services, like your Dr.'s appts and resurces uses etc. this is one place where Obamacare definately messed up as it is going to start taxing a lot of resources including drug and device manufacturers, which will of course be passed on to hospitals, then service seakers. We ought to be making it for affordable for people to simply purchase care directly rather than through insurance, instead Obamacare makes it more difficult.

I agree that people need to take more responsibility. That's why included in this legislation is mandates that calorie and nutrition information needs to be provided at Fast food restaurants which are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease and a variety of ailments that are adding billions to our nations healthcare costs.

That's nice, but I'm not sure how many people don't intuitively know that a Big Mac is not the most nutrional lunch in the world and I'm not sure how many will change their behavior now that they do know. McDonalds is not responsible for obesity and heart disease. the people that consumer McDonald food are.

The only "choices" that are being taken away are plans that didn't offer coverage that would prevent someone from going broke if they were hit with a major illness. Going bankrupt even though they had "insurance". These are the types of policies that failed to actually insure people. We don't need those types of policies in this country since all they did was contribute to the rising costs problem for everyone else.

That is all the more reason to remedy the problem by allowing employers to offer insurance vouchers rather than limiting the choices of the employees by choosing a plan for them. You're right. I don't know who would choose to buy a plan like that, IF they actually know what they were buying. Maybe someone that was willing to accept the risk I suppose. But if you made a piece of legislation that accomplished that instead, gettng rid of those junk plans would take care of itself in the market. There would be no need for a law banning them and at the same time you accomplish are goal of giving people more choice and takng more active role in choosing the health care most appropriate for them.

I just want to address one item here. You say that fast food restaurants are not responsible for the choices people make when it comes to what they eat. However, this is not completely true. These companies spend billions on advertising enticing us to eat at their establishments. And advertising does work. If it did not, they wouldn't spend the money on it.

I smoked cigarettes for years knowing that it was bad for me. Of course, I was enticed into starting for many different reasons, some could well be contributed to television and radio advertising, which at one time was legal. Well today, we have the same type of health crisis with fast food, and in fact, it may actually be worse than that created by the cigarette companies. So why don't we ban all fast food advertising like we did with cigarettes and tobacco products? We know it is bad for us, but we allow these companies to entice us into buying their crap, and nobody argues against it.

Truthfully, how many people here think that cigarette companies should be permitted to advertise freely via any source they choose? Maybe we should put the same restrictions on fast food advertising. I know there are some who will say that these restrictions would be unconstitutional, and that we are just turning big government into big brother even more than it already is. I'm not suggesting we do this, just throwing it out there. But it should make you think. We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?

 

[Bern80]

I just want to address one item here. You say that fast food restaurants are not responsible for the choices people make when it comes to what they eat. However, this is not completely true. These companies spend billions on advertising enticing us to eat at their establishments. And advertising does work. If it did not, they wouldn't spend the money on it.

I smoked cigarettes for years knowing that it was bad for me. Of course, I was enticed into starting for many different reasons, some could well be contributed to television and radio advertising, which at one time was legal. Well today, we have the same type of health crisis with fast food, and in fact, it may actually be worse than that created by the cigarette companies. So why don't we ban all fast food advertising like we did with cigarettes and tobacco products? We know it is bad for us, but we allow these companies to entice us into buying their crap, and nobody argues against it.

Because you can't fix what you don't acknowledge. If you don't acknowledge that short of holding a gun to your head, the choice to purchase fast food or smoke is YOUR CHOICE. YOU choose the behavior, YOU choose the consequences. You cant fix what is ultimately YOUR problem by holding someone else accountable for it.

Truthfully, how many people here think that cigarette companies should be permitted to advertise freely via any source they choose? Maybe we should put the same restrictions on fast food advertising. I know there are some who will say that these restrictions would be unconstitutional, and that we are just turning big government into big brother even more than it already is. I'm not suggesting we do this, just throwing it out there. But it should make you think. We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?

As long as the risks aren't being purposfully hidden and they aren't lieing about their product, they should be able to do whatever they want. If you think you were influenced by radio and tv advertising, then I was likely exposed to the same messages you were growing up and I don't smoke.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok, so you are against an enormously important piece of legislation because of the way it was formatted? Get the hell out of here. Let me know when you decide not to be so damn lazy and want to discuss what the bill does and not how it's formatted.

Again, you must lie about my position and deflect. Stop being dishonest. It is not the way it is formatted. It is the fact that crap was passed that make this bill more weight and less help. I have pointed this out multiple times and you have steadfastly ignored it. Are you going to address the point?

Problem is, you have no point. What "crap" in the bill would you remove that will make this a better bill? Specifically, because first you complained it was 2000 pages, then you didn't like it was one long document instead of a bunch of smaller documents. Now you don't like crap that is in this bill, making it overweight. So which crap don't you like?

First off would be anything that does not have to do with actual health care like the IRS provisions and the inane requirements to fill out forms for no reason. Tying healthcare even closer to jobs which is a HUGE reason the healthcare industry is having many of the problems that it does have. The mandate as well as the need for the government to 'approve' what is an acceptable health plan and what is not. The inane requirements for all healthcare plans to cover certain procedures that you should not be forced to seek coverage for. The requirements placed on workplaces to have healthcare plans available for their employees or pay fines/taxes/whatever you want to call them. This ties into my earlier statement of making healthcare closer to your job but the end effect of this is fewer jobs and we have already seen some of that impact. Playing with the numbers to make the bill look cheaper than it really is through 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits. The benefits will eventually exceed the taxes. Union payoffs allowing them to evade the taxes that the non union people are forced to pay. That is bullshit political payoff that should have NEVER happened and I cannot believe that people are okay with something that is so obviously corrupt. The new Bureaucracies that are created just to manage this boondoggle. the republicans claim 111 but I find that number suspect.

I may be miss-informed on some of this and if I am, please correct me but this is simply off the top of my head. I am sure there is much more but again it is very difficult to address this bill because of the way it was done and that was the reason it was done in this manner.

The other problem I have with the bill is the fact that is does not cover some of the things that need to be addressed as well. There is very little for tort reform and expanding options as well as almost nothing to adress the actual problem of medical costs. You keep saying that this is a starting point but that is an outright lie. Congress is not treating this as a starting point but rather they are acting as if there are done. Something else that would have been addressed with smaller bills, the improvement process would have gone on for a far longer time. this was a drop and forget. Healthcare reform has not even begun to scratch what needs to be addressed and yet we have a bill that is supposed to have taken care of that need. the only people that see this as a starting point are those that are hoping the insurance companies fail to remain solvent and this leads to a single payer option. An option that congress trumpeted about loudly but dropped as soon as politically possible.

 

[auditor0007]

I just want to address one item here. You say that fast food restaurants are not responsible for the choices people make when it comes to what they eat. However, this is not completely true. These companies spend billions on advertising enticing us to eat at their establishments. And advertising does work. If it did not, they wouldn't spend the money on it.

I smoked cigarettes for years knowing that it was bad for me. Of course, I was enticed into starting for many different reasons, some could well be contributed to television and radio advertising, which at one time was legal. Well today, we have the same type of health crisis with fast food, and in fact, it may actually be worse than that created by the cigarette companies. So why don't we ban all fast food advertising like we did with cigarettes and tobacco products? We know it is bad for us, but we allow these companies to entice us into buying their crap, and nobody argues against it.

Because you can't fix what you don't acknowledge. If you don't acknowledge that short of holding a gun to your head, the choice to purchase fast food or smoke is YOUR CHOICE. YOU choose the behavior, YOU choose the consequences. You cant fix what is ultimately YOUR problem by holding someone else accountable for it.

Truthfully, how many people here think that cigarette companies should be permitted to advertise freely via any source they choose? Maybe we should put the same restrictions on fast food advertising. I know there are some who will say that these restrictions would be unconstitutional, and that we are just turning big government into big brother even more than it already is. I'm not suggesting we do this, just throwing it out there. But it should make you think. We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?

As long as the risks aren't being purposfully hidden and they aren't lieing about their product, they should be able to do whatever they want. If you think you were influenced by radio and tv advertising, then I was likely exposed to the same messages you were growing up and I don't smoke.

But just as with smoking cigarettes, the fast food companies do purposefully hide the fact that their food is terrible for you, just like the cigarette companies denied that smoking caused cancer and heart problems for years. When have you ever seen a McDonald's ad, or any other fast food ad, that stated eating their food on a regular basis is detrimental to your health? They know it is, but they don't care. They have a product to sell.

I'm not saying this is the way we should go, but I am pointing out the similarities of the situations. And there is a cost to everyone, not just those who make the choice to smoke or eat food that is not good for them. We all pay for it in the end.

 

[FA_Q2]

I just want to address one item here. You say that fast food restaurants are not responsible for the choices people make when it comes to what they eat. However, this is not completely true. These companies spend billions on advertising enticing us to eat at their establishments. And advertising does work. If it did not, they wouldn't spend the money on it.

Yes, it is completely true. Choice is exactly that, choice and advertising is NOT an excuse for making a stupid choice. If you put it in your mouth and swallow that is your own doing and there is NO ONE that you can blame for that other than yourself.

I smoked cigarettes for years knowing that it was bad for me. Of course, I was enticed into starting for many different reasons, some could well be contributed to television and radio advertising, which at one time was legal. Well today, we have the same type of health crisis with fast food, and in fact, it may actually be worse than that created by the cigarette companies. So why don't we ban all fast food advertising like we did with cigarettes and tobacco products? We know it is bad for us, but we allow these companies to entice us into buying their crap, and nobody argues against it.

Because there is still a modicum (fading fast but it is there) of personal responsibility in this nation. there is no reason that fast food should not be able to advertise. The worst atrocities always start with good intentions.

Truthfully, how many people here think that cigarette companies should be permitted to advertise freely via any source they choose? Maybe we should put the same restrictions on fast food advertising. I know there are some who will say that these restrictions would be unconstitutional, and that we are just turning big government into big brother even more than it already is. I'm not suggesting we do this, just throwing it out there. But it should make you think. We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?

I do. I find it stupid that the government controls the advertisements of cigarette companies. It all starts with the fact people do not want to be bothered being parents. Well, tough shit. uncle Sam should not be helping you be a shitty parent by taking on your responsibilities. It has lead to the insane degradation of today's youth. There is a HUGE difference on the way we treat parenting today and the way it was treated before. There are some improvements but many. For the most part, we are regressing. On the other hand, I would have no problem with required warning labels on products and commercials. There is nothing wrong with requiring a company be honest with its customers. Now that I think of it, it is odd that has not happened yet.
All in all, I am a firm believer in freedom, personal responsibility and the choices that come with those two concepts. That in of itself leads me away from much of the regulatory crap that comes along today.


By the way, those advertising laws have nothing to do with adults and smoking. They were passed out of fear that they were enticing children to smoke.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not saying this is the way we should go, but I am pointing out the similarities of the situations. And there is a cost to everyone, not just those who make the choice to smoke or eat food that is not good for them. We all pay for it in the end.

Actually - the cost for obesity and smoking is less than that of a healthy person. Those people die young, soon after their prime as a matter of fact when healthy people live far longer. A HUGE chunk of your HC costs are attained in the last 10 years of life, hence Medicare. If you die young you avoid the lion's share of the costs.

 

[Bern80]

But just as with smoking cigarettes, the fast food companies do purposefully hide the fact that their food is terrible for you, just like the cigarette companies denied that smoking caused cancer and heart problems for years. When have you ever seen a McDonald's ad, or any other fast food ad, that stated eating their food on a regular basis is detrimental to your health? They know it is, but they don't care. They have a product to sell.

They shoudn't have to for a lot of reasons. Mainly, fast food is not addictive. Too much of pretty much any food will have negative health consequences. I have no problem with them printing the nutrional information, but I don't feel they should have to put warning stickers on a qtr. pounder box saying eating too many will cause high cholesterol.

I'm not saying this is the way we should go, but I am pointing out the similarities of the situations. And there is a cost to everyone, not just those who make the choice to smoke or eat food that is not good for them. We all pay for it in the end.

In ways, they are similar, but in a one major way they are not. Again, fast food is not addictive the way cigarettes are which is why I would be for regulating that they must warn people of the health risks. On the other hand we know there is a lot of fat in a cheeseburger. And we also know that eating too much fat is not good for you, so I don't really see the point in McDonalds puttig a label on a box telling people what everyone intuitively already knows.

 

[Bern80]

How would employers offering vouchers be beneficial? The best way to keep costs down is to pool together and purchase as a group, which is the benefit of getting your insurance through a plan picked by your employer. If everyone was given vouchers and went to pick any plan they wanted, they would lose all that leverage of the group and the price would increase.

And it's one of those decisions where it's hard to have your cake and eat it too. Obviously if a bunch of people get together to spread the risk they are all going to have to agree on something thus limiting their choices. That choice is the reason their should be no mandate. People should be free decide which benefit they want. The benefit if shared risk or the benefit of choice.

But thats the thing, a person with a crappy plan like that isn't assuming the risk....the rest of us are. That person will still end up in the hospital and will still be treated but that risk he took by having a shitty plan will effect us because our costs will increase due to his risk taking.

That's a problem that can be alleviated by making the person who chooses such a plan assume the financial risk of doing so. Maybe you allow physicians to refuse service for those types of plans. However, I again think this would become ultimately irrelevant if we put in place policy that offers individuals more choices.

I was more curious if you know more about Medicare. I suggested we just put those that can't pay on that. As far as I can tell using parts A and B for people under 65 would not be a private plan.

Ultimately there will always be a need for some service that helps people that can't help themselves financially. There will likely always be a need for insurance of some type. But to improve health care it would be best for insurance to be used only in catastrophic instances. To that end we need to find out how we can influence the market such that peope can pay for services directly without incurring major financial hardship. Unfortunately some of the new taxes in the bill move us farther from that rather than closer. They will actually raise the prices charged for service rather than lower them. It really boils down to how the problem is being solved. Putting in artificial subsidies and the like to allow the consumer to pay less is one way to do it. Actually addressing the cost of administering resources is another. if you do the later you also accomplish the former. You focus only on the former you may not address the later or may even make it worse, which this bill most assuredly does.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

but now they are rising FASTER. Far faster as a matter of fact and, if I am not mistaken, the bill limits the amount of profit that an insurance company is allowed to make as a percentage of their total expences. So, the original problem, the one Obama started this bill on, was to reduce costs and all we have seen is an increase in costs. That is a major problem

I have yet to see a law that puts a set limit on health insurance profits, let alone one that's been initiated. I recommend you reread the article I just sent. Yes, they are rising FASTER, and it should be no surprise that the article is entitled "Health Insurance Posts Record Profits" despite the recession, up by over 50%.

Again, the facts appear to show that those increased premiums are being translated directly into profit. This comes as no surprise to me, as I've seen mild price gauging tactics before government restrictions before. Heck a few years back when gas prices were soaring look what happened when the government was threatening action: prices went up!

We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?

While that point is true, fast food does not carry the same addictive properties as tobacco products. That being said, I think you're right in that we're not addressing the issue as well as we should.

Actually - the cost for obesity and smoking is less than that of a healthy person. Those people die young, soon after their prime as a matter of fact when healthy people live far longer. A HUGE chunk of your HC costs are attained in the last 10 years of life, hence Medicare. If you die young you avoid the lion's share of the costs.

That's true. And a solution to lower healthcare costs would be killing people over 30 years of age. I think what some people forget in this debate, and I'm not saying you are going to that kind of extreme, is that the COST to all of this can NOT just be measured in money. If a new healthcare policy costs more money and makes us all live happier healthier lives, that's not a bad thing. Cost still needs to be addressed, but we must always keep the goals of medicine in mind. Not saying that directly at you, FAQ2, just in general.

I have no problem with them printing the nutrional information, but I don't feel they should have to put warning stickers on a qtr. pounder box saying eating too many will cause high cholesterol.

Why not? Why would that be a bad thing? Everyone may "know" it just like people know cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer. But it helps direct the issue.

That's a problem that can be alleviated by making the person who chooses such a plan assume the financial risk of doing so. Maybe you allow physicians to refuse service for those types of plans.

Doctors are allowed to refuse any insurance company or policy they want already.

 

[Greenbeard]

I can't get through it. Have you tried to read it?

Everything you need to know in 68 pages.

Or, if you want something less comprehensive, here's a 13-pager.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just to name a few:

- Ending of coverage denial for pre-existing conditions

That is a favorite of Democrats and other defenders of this debacle. the problem is that coverage was rarely denied based on those conditions. Rates were higher if a person had a condition that could rise the cost of their health care, and was denied of they failed to disclose it.



Another claim that falls short in the fact department.



Which will raise rates for everyone, even those who prefer to have that limited coverage.

I can understand why this can cause problems, I just fail to understand why people whine about it. They chose the policy that had limited coverage, and then expect the insurer to keep paying when they have expenses they do not anticipate. My sympathy for this problem is rather low.


No it does not. What it does is lower the cost ofr the people that use insurance the most, not for everyone. Expanding the risk pool only benefits the insurance companies, why do you think they were so solidly behind the mandate.



That could have been accomplished without a 2000 page bill.

- Tax credits for small business who offer medical insurance to their employees

I thought you were opposed to the status quo. Most experts, including those who support this law, tell me that the primary factor that drives up health care costs is the fact that people are not responsible for the costs. Expanding that problem to more people is not going to fix anything.

I'm tired of explaining over and over and over again the same concepts to uneducated people. You refute what I posted with opinions. Weak ones at that. When you're ready to post actual facts to backup any of the drivel you posted, let me know.

Pick one thing, I don't care, but post some facts. Trying to debate your obviously misinformed opinion is just not worth it.

You post opinions, and get upset when I counter them.

Insurers only routinely deny coverage based on a pre existing condition when it was not revealed before the policy is enacted. They actually get away with that because that is fraud.

Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they make the news because they are rare, not because they are common.

As for the caps on lifetime, and even annual, payouts, why would anyone think they are unreasonable? They are told about them when they buy the policy, and often choose those polices because the premiums are lower. Some people end up with unusual health problems, and end up exceeding their limits, and loosing coverage as a result. As I said before, I admit this is a problem, but it is also extremely rare because most people do not have the type of chronic conditions that require large medical coverage.

This law cannot possible save everyone money. That is simple economics that anyone should be able to comprehend. What this bill will do is save the people who need the most expensive coverage a few dollars by forcing everyone else to cover their expenses.

Facts I have in plenty, and the defenders of this law routinely ignore them because they prefer their version of reality. They, like you, prefer to class the real problems as nothing more than opinions.

 

[RDD_1210]

That is a favorite of Democrats and other defenders of this debacle. the problem is that coverage was rarely denied based on those conditions. Rates were higher if a person had a condition that could rise the cost of their health care, and was denied of they failed to disclose it.



Another claim that falls short in the fact department.



Which will raise rates for everyone, even those who prefer to have that limited coverage.

I can understand why this can cause problems, I just fail to understand why people whine about it. They chose the policy that had limited coverage, and then expect the insurer to keep paying when they have expenses they do not anticipate. My sympathy for this problem is rather low.


No it does not. What it does is lower the cost ofr the people that use insurance the most, not for everyone. Expanding the risk pool only benefits the insurance companies, why do you think they were so solidly behind the mandate.



That could have been accomplished without a 2000 page bill.



I thought you were opposed to the status quo. Most experts, including those who support this law, tell me that the primary factor that drives up health care costs is the fact that people are not responsible for the costs. Expanding that problem to more people is not going to fix anything.

I'm tired of explaining over and over and over again the same concepts to uneducated people. You refute what I posted with opinions. Weak ones at that. When you're ready to post actual facts to backup any of the drivel you posted, let me know.

Pick one thing, I don't care, but post some facts. Trying to debate your obviously misinformed opinion is just not worth it.

You post opinions, and get upset when I counter them.

Insurers only routinely deny coverage based on a pre existing condition when it was not revealed before the policy is enacted. They actually get away with that because that is fraud.

Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they make the news because they are rare, not because they are common.

As for the caps on lifetime, and even annual, payouts, why would anyone think they are unreasonable? They are told about them when they buy the policy, and often choose those polices because the premiums are lower. Some people end up with unusual health problems, and end up exceeding their limits, and loosing coverage as a result. As I said before, I admit this is a problem, but it is also extremely rare because most people do not have the type of chronic conditions that require large medical coverage.

This law cannot possible save everyone money. That is simple economics that anyone should be able to comprehend. What this bill will do is save the people who need the most expensive coverage a few dollars by forcing everyone else to cover their expenses.

Facts I have in plenty, and the defenders of this law routinely ignore them because they prefer their version of reality. They, like you, prefer to class the real problems as nothing more than opinions.

Another post, more baseless opinions. I asked for you to provide ACTUAL proof not your opinion. What I did was post benefits directly from the bill, you countered with your opinion...which happens to be baseless and Waaaaaaaaay off. If you're not going to post something of substance, don't bother replying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you trying to bullshit somebody or do you really believe this?

I do not believe this, I know this.

Bland CBO Memo, or Smoking Gun? | Cato @ Liberty

Ezra Klein - An interview with Mark Pauly, father of the individual mandate

I know you want to believe that this law is a model of transparency and openness, but you really need to open your eyes and look at the way Congress actually works. The experience will be educational.

The Democrats have made a major push comprehensive health reform or coverage expansion every time they've had unified government over the past 60 years; the one possible exception is the Carter years, despite both Carter and Congressional Democrats offering plans.

They did? Why did they never pass it before then? Why did the various bills languish in committees most of that time?

By the way, there were just as many Republican versions of health care reform as their were Democrat ones. In fact, the bill that I thought made the most sense was co sponsored by a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican. I hated about half of it, and thought the other half made sense, so I was willing to admit it made sense.

The ACA, on the other hand, is almost all bad, with only one or two good points.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is not actually true.
What Pre-existing Conditions Are Usually Denied By Health Insurance Companies? | LIVESTRONG.COM
At Risk: Pre-Existing Conditions Could Affect 1 in 2 Americans: | HealthCare.gov

EVEN IF what you say is true, why is changing that possibility a bad thing?

Did I say it was a bad thing? I said it would not save the average person money.

By the way, you, being a doctor, should know the difference between an exclusionary period and charging higher premiums to cover higher expenses and out right denial of coverage.

But thanks for reinforcing the erroneous opinion of idiots by posting the same stupid articles that have already been refuted. I really enjoy the propaganda pice from the government that wants me to believe that insurers are willing to deny people all health care because they have acne.

As someone else mentioned, these seem to be unsupported opinions. Again, regardless of the frequency this had happened in the country previously, do you or do you not believe that insurance companies should be able to drop patients when a major illness hits due to irrelevant or unrelated clerical errors or other excuses?

Rescission Health Insurance - Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says - Los Angeles Times
How Insurance Companies Hurt Policyholders - ABC News
Daily Dose - HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

They do not drop patients because they do not have patients. They do, however, have customers, and contracts with those customers. Would you expect your car insurance to cover expenses if your home burned down? Or maybe your home insurance cover you if you get hurt at work.

As for the clerical errors, do you really think this new law covers that? If so, you are even dumber than you think I am.

Yes you can make the claim that people chose the wrong insurance, but at the end of the day, when they can't pay for themselves and go bankrupt, it's everyone else who is picking up the tab. We can similarly be without sympathy for people with no insurance, but it is your low sympathy that contributes to the problem: uninsured people raise our insurance rates.

Regarding the size of the bill: seriously, it doesn't matter. Yes, it's not ideal. It SHOULD be in simple language that everyone can understand and make reasonable and concise points. But it's not. So just debate the points it does make.

Uninsured people have no affect on our insurance rates because insurers do not pay for them. They do affect our taxes though, so if you want to discuss a way to alleviate that burden feel free.

I am not the one that is not debating the points it makes, you are, as I just demonstrated. The only reason I mentioned the size of the bill is to point out that it is not actually addressing the problem RDD identified, as it actually makes the status quo more pervasive than it already is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, so you are against an enormously important piece of legislation because of the way it was formatted? Get the hell out of here. Let me know when you decide not to be so damn lazy and want to discuss what the bill does and not how it's formatted.

Again, you must lie about my position and deflect. Stop being dishonest. It is not the way it is formatted. It is the fact that crap was passed that make this bill more weight and less help. I have pointed this out multiple times and you have steadfastly ignored it. Are you going to address the point?

Problem is, you have no point. What "crap" in the bill would you remove that will make this a better bill? Specifically, because first you complained it was 2000 pages, then you didn't like it was one long document instead of a bunch of smaller documents. Now you don't like crap that is in this bill, making it overweight. So which crap don't you like?

That position might actually be defensible if you did not simply dismiss my point by point refutation of the points you made as simply not worth your time debating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but now they are rising FASTER. Far faster as a matter of fact and, if I am not mistaken, the bill limits the amount of profit that an insurance company is allowed to make as a percentage of their total expences. So, the original problem, the one Obama started this bill on, was to reduce costs and all we have seen is an increase in costs. That is a major problem

I have yet to see a law that puts a set limit on health insurance profits, let alone one that's been initiated. I recommend you reread the article I just sent. Yes, they are rising FASTER, and it should be no surprise that the article is entitled "Health Insurance Posts Record Profits" despite the recession, up by over 50%.

Why do we need to restrict health insurance profits? Just how much profit do you think they should make over and above their expenses? Should we also restrict the profits of doctors and hospitals?