New Healthcare Plan

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by auditor0007, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    I constantly hear how it is un-Constitutional to make insurance coverage mandatory. With that in mind, it seems to me that it is also un-Constitutional to require employers to provide healthcare plans to their employees. Secondly, it certainly seems un-Constitutional to require private hospitals to treat patients who have no means of payment.

    So I have a proposal. I think legislation should be passed so that employers no longer have to provide health insurance and healthcare providers no longer need to treat anyone who can't pay. Put these two items into effect, and let the chips fall where they may.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Hmmm, no responses. Anyone want to tell me what you think would happen if these two changes were put into place?
     
  3. Cal
    Offline

    Cal Since 2010™

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,143
    Thanks Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Right behind you!
    Ratings:
    +375
    :eusa_eh:.. that was an insightful post..

    The "un-constitutional" mandate was a Republican idea to begin with. Whether they like that or not, it's just the fact of the matter. They liked it an awful lot until the Dems decided used it as a way to keep people from going to buy insurance after they get sick.. Then.. :eek:.. It's suddenly socialism. Conservative logic.. Go figure. :cuckoo:
     
  4. Truthseeker420
    Offline

    Truthseeker420 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,365
    Thanks Received:
    980
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    There is an easy answer medicare for everyone.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    My point is a simple one; if employers did not provide health insurance, everyone would have to purchase it on their own. They would then have to pay the full cost rather than having the employer pay the bulk of it. Then people would really understand how expensive it is and begin questioning the cost. I'm not really suggesting we do that, although it would make sense to take it away from the employers. Most people are happy with their health insurance, if they are employed and get it through their employer, because they only see it costing them $100 or $200 per month for the entire family. If they had to pay $1000 or more per month, they would be squealing like little pigs.
     
  6. Mr_Rockhead
    Offline

    Mr_Rockhead Slouching toward Medicare

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    359
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +59
    Uh, employers are not required to provide health insurance and they never have been.

    No, they only offer such packages because, in the past, it was a good deal for both them and their employees. It was a win-win situation because the employer could negotiate a good price on group insurance coverage and then offer it to their employees in lieu of higher wages.

    However, that’s changed considerably. Due mainly to the double-digit premium increases that are common today, it is no longer profitable for an employer to offer such benefits (and I suspect most of them will stop doing just that very soon).

    Once the dust settles, and we have government-funded insurance (or healthcare) in the mix, I expect most employers will simply drop the uncontrolled costs of such benefits and replace them with a fixed (and probably small) amount of additional wages.

    So when Obama says, “If you like your present coverage, you can keep it” he is not really telling the truth because you do not get to make that decision, your employer does.

    Nope, employers will not continue to offer these very expensive and uncontrollable packages once there is taxpayer-funded insurance available to their employees. In fact, I believe some employers (3M?) have already switched their employees to the government system and I expect the rest of them will follow suit as soon as they can work it out.

    On the second part of your proposal, as long as a person can’t be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, why not just have the healthcare provider buy a government-funded insurance policy for their patients who don’t have insurance?

    Seems like big payouts for a relatively small investment to me.
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    There hasn't historically been an employer mandate (i.e. tax penalty), there have been government incentives (essentially tax subsidies) supporting employer-sponsored health insurance. The difference there is really just between carrot and stick.

    I've wondered what happens to EMTALA under the Republican proposal. We know that over the next decade they phase down disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments that the government makes to hospitals to compensate them for the uncompensated care they deliver to the uninsured. Since those payments are made as part of regular Medicare reimbursements, presumably in the next decade (when Medicare itself gradually stops making reimbursements to hospitals under their proposal), those payments would disappear entirely.

    At the same time, the EMTALA requirements to provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay apply to providers who contract to be part of the Medicare provider network. But since, under their proposal, Medicare will eventually no longer be a payer, it's not clear to me that CMS would retain a provider network (if it's no longer an insurer, it doesn't make much sense to contract with providers for payment). Seniors who have insurance under their proposal would be in whatever provider network their private insurance plan has contracted. But then to which providers would EMTALA apply? Would the requirement that hospitals accept all comers in emergency situations dissolve?

    There's no legislative text to go with their proposal so it's difficult to say (personally I doubt Ryan has thought this out to that extent). But it seems very plausible that the Republicans have already voted to (in principle) phase out EMTALA requirements; certainly they've voted to reduce the government payments to hospitals designed specifically to make EMTALA somewhat financially viable for hospitals.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  8. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    I realize employers are not yet mandated to provide health insurance, but they will be under the new legislation, or they will face penalties. The bottom line, to me, is that employer based health insurance is one of the primary reasons health insurance costs have gone through the roof. With employer based insurance, employees generally only have a couple of options as to the type of policy they will receive. This really does diminish the idea that people have much choice.
     
  9. Mr_Rockhead
    Offline

    Mr_Rockhead Slouching toward Medicare

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    359
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +59

    Anytime there is a perception that someone else is paying, there is bound to be runaway costs. So, if employer-provided insurance is responsible for out-of-control costs, government-provided insurance will also be responsible for out-of-control cost.

    And, as far as the employee’s options go, if they come out of this with more options, they will certainly have to pay extra for them.

    As far as the law requiring employers to provide insurance goes, my point is that the employers are ultimately going to provide taxpayer-funded insurance and not employer-funded insurance. This is a “bottom-line” issue so shifting the burden of these out-of-control costs to the taxpayer is a no brainer.

    And this means that the over 80% of Americans who do have health insurance are not going to get to keep what they currently have. Nope, they are going to get taxpayer-funded coverage just like the 20% who don’t have a private policy (but do still have government-funded health care).

    Why do you think so many unions are opting-out of this program? Do you think that maybe their membership might know it’s a real sucky deal for them?

    Anyway, the 80% will be faced with either getting by with less coverage or coughing up more money to maintain the coverage they currently have. And that is nothing more than just another fuckin ripoff of the hapless working stiff who will have absolutely no say in it because it is now the law of the land.

    All this to funnel even more obnoxious amounts of money into the coffers of the very insurance companies that even you agree are screwing us to death with their double-digit premium increases.

    What a waste.
     
  10. Zona
    Offline

    Zona A guy in ariZONA

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    13,874
    Thanks Received:
    941
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ.
    Ratings:
    +942
    How unamerican of you. Socialist.
     

Share This Page