Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Private insurers most certainly DO have the capability of deciding what costs they will and will not pay. They use fee schedules, surgical schedules, charts detailing the average rate or charge for identical or similar services in a certain geographical area called "reasonable and customary" fees. Also, a private insurer would be quite apt to disallow an artificial limb for an 85-year old person. Buried deep in the fine print of most insurance policies (just as in those pesky credit card agreements), there can usually be found a catch-all clause ending in "...or for any reason whatsoever..."
Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!
Health Insurance Fee Schedules
or you can Google "fees and schedules used by medical profession" where you'll find a slew of articles or state guidelines.
I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"
The last suggestion would simply involve expanding Medicaid, which operates on fixed grants to the states based upon historical and anticipated needs. The State of Vermont cut a deal with the federal government for a waiver of the fixed amount for five years in order to cover more uninsured caught in the crack between earning to much and too little. Vermont also has it's own new health care program, which will run a deficit for the first five years, so the thinking is that between the two, Vermonters will have no excuse for not staying healthy and the State won't go bankrupt doing health care. (Vermont has a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature, by the way, which worked this thing out without all the gnashing of teeth which has become the norm in Washington).
Vermont Global Commitment to Health
Actually Maggie, the message here is this, "it's a state issue" see the 10th Amendment. So what Vt. does, and Mass. does is a result of what the voters will of those states say it is. Now the grants that I am talking about are more in line with what John McCain had proposed in his campaign as a tax credit. This grant will go to offset the cost of paying for the state sponsored Universal care provided the voters in your state or mine decide they want it. If a state for example wants to go the co-op route I say let them, because in the end it's a state matter. Where the Fed. comes in is as a regulatory body to provide the proper environments for these programs to thrive. Let me give you another example, take my state for example, lets say here that 99% of the people wanted Universal healthcare, then it would seem to me why direct that call for healthcare to a Federal level when you need it a local level. and constitutionally speaking it's supposed to be there anyway.
Uh, if Health Care is so important, then why would Obama care about Political Capital? If he really cared he would just push it anyway. He said it was important to the economy recovering, but now he doesn't care about the economy? WTF?Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?
Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)
* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)
** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.
P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard bitch about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?
How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?
It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.
-Joe
Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?
Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)
* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)
** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.
P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard bitch about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?
How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?
It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.
-Joe
Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:
"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."
bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com
What you heard was republican, health insurance, and pharmaceutical talking points ... in other words, Bullshit.I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."
I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.
Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.
Immie
Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?
Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)
* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)
** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.
P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard bitch about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?
How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?
It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.
-Joe
Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:
"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."
bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com
The difference as I see it? A bureaucracy hired by and accountable to We, The People is a bunch of middle class clerks keeping the paperwork straight.
What more do you need from an insurance company?
Million dollar executives?!?
-Joe
Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?
Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)
{snipped for brevity}
Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.
Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:
Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.
I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.
Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:
Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."
I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.
Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.
Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com
Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:
"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."
bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com
The difference as I see it? A bureaucracy hired by and accountable to We, The People is a bunch of middle class clerks keeping the paperwork straight.
What more do you need from an insurance company?
Million dollar executives?!?
-Joe
A bureaucracy that suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals -- doesn't matter if it's government or big insurance, we still get screwed.
The bolded -you trust the government way more than I do.
I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.
Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:
Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."
What's scary is what government run agency has been managed well & cost effective over the last 70 years? Name me one.
Social security/Medicare/Fannie/Freddie. Hmm. I really can't think of any.
Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:
Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.
Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!
Health Insurance Fee Schedules
or you can Google "fees and schedules used by medical profession" where you'll find a slew of articles or state guidelines.
What I thought. So how does that work out with the Obama plan? Yeah, I know, costs are held to the gov't plan, if exceed it's out of pocket, beyond deductible. Reason those plans will be dropped. On the other hand, we'll all be better off when the weak links die off, whether due to genetics, life style or age.
Soylent green come to life.
Uh, if Health Care is so important, then why would Obama care about Political Capital? If he really cared he would just push it anyway. He said it was important to the economy recovering, but now he doesn't care about the economy? WTF?Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?
Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)
* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)
** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.
P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard bitch about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?
How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?
It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.
-Joe
Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:
"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."
bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com
Three things drive health care cost in this country. Access, technology, and lawyers. Which one do you think Obama is going to attack Maggie?
Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.
HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.
Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:
Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.
There is absolutely no Republican even remotely suggesting an invasion of Iran. Give me a break! What they have been complaining about is a sitting POTUS that appeared to be very reluctant in backing--by "verbally" supporting the opposition party--& also reluctant in making strong remarks to the Iranian regime over the killing & beating of protestors. That's it. It took a few days of arm twisting but Obama came out as he should & said something regarding the violence against the protestors.
As far as health care. Does anyone understand this plan? I certainly don't want something passed in fire department speed--like the stimulus bill was only to find out small details later--like all the political pay-backs-pork & earmarks that were stuffed into this bill that had nothing to do with economic stimulus.
