" Personal Responsibility," a conservative mantra- or is it??

[Greenbeard]

You will be thrown into a medicaid type system should Obama care be implemented, that is my entire point. Employers will dump their coverage of their employees as it will not be advantageous to cover them anymore, it will be cheaper to dump them into a national program.

But there isn't a national program. The structure of of our health system in broad strokes isn't different from what it is right now: Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (the difference being that under the ACA, Medicaid is available to all of the poor and not just some, as is the case now), private insurance for everyone else.

If you're not in a group or employer-sponsored private plan, then you buy insurance (high-deductible, if you want) in the individual market, just as is the case now. The difference is that at least some of the individual market in your state will have some structure to it, as well as consumer protections (which you've already enjoyed for years if you're in employer-sponsored group coverage).

There's no national program you gain access to if your employer doesn't offer insurance, you'll still need to go buy private insurance in your state.

Don't believe me, look at all the waivers that Pelosi and Obama have given to Union shops and restuarants that they like, it's all over the place, it you are a favored person, you get the waiver, it not, you get to pay.

Those are waivers from one page of the legislation, the one requiring a phase-out of annual limits on insurance policies between now and 2014. A small percentage of health insurance plans have annual limits on benefits and the law seeks to end that; however, some of those plans would be destabilized by that change and, if they could demonstrate that this is the case, they can avoid that change until 2014 (the GAO looked into the waiver process and found the process to be clean, with approvals and denials based on a numerical standard for the premium increase caused by the annual limit phaseout; by the way, most of the denied applications were union plans).

The actual impact of that annual limit phase is small because annual limits aren't particularly prevalent:

Only 8 percent of large employers, 14 percent of small employers and 19 percent of individual market policies impose an annual limit and thus would be directly impacted by these interim final regulations. [54] In the first year of implementation (beginning September 23, 2010), it is estimated that less than 0.08 percent (less than one tenth of one percent) of large employer plans, approximately 2.6 percent of small employer plans, and 2.3 percent of individual plans would have to raise their annual limit to $750,000. [55] This first-year increase in annual limits would potentially affect an estimated 1,670,000 persons across the three markets. The second year of the phase-in, beginning September 23, 2011, would affect additional plans and policies, requiring a cumulative 0.7 percent of large employer plans, 3.9 percent of small employer plans, and 5.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $1,250,000. The second-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 3,278,250 persons across the three markets. The third and final year of the phase-in period (beginning on September 23, 2012) would affect additional plans and policies requiring a cumulative 2.4 percent of large employer plans, 8.1 percent of small employer plans and 14.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $2 million. The third-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 8,104,500 persons across the three markets. Note that the estimated number of plans and people affected are upper-bound estimates since they do not take into account grandfathered health plans and plans that receive a waiver from the annual limits policy.

 

[Maple]

Personal responsibility is a libertarian virtue, everyone knows this.

It is a conservative mantra- yet conservatives don't want to enforce it when it comes to healthcare mandates imposed by states. They want to "wish" it true.

How is enforcing personal responsibility, personal responsibility?

Seems like a contradiction if you ask me.

Well, as long as you are willing to pay for someone else's lack of personal responsibility, they will gladly let ya. I am stunned that you are willing to do so. I am not.

 

[Maple]

You will be thrown into a medicaid type system should Obama care be implemented, that is my entire point. Employers will dump their coverage of their employees as it will not be advantageous to cover them anymore, it will be cheaper to dump them into a national program.

But there isn't a national program. The structure of of our health system in broad strokes isn't different from what it is right now: Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (the difference being that under the ACA, Medicaid is available to all of the poor and not just some, as is the case now), private insurance for everyone else.

If you're not in a group or employer-sponsored private plan, then you buy insurance (high-deductible, if you want) in the individual market, just as is the case now. The difference is that at least some of the individual market in your state will have some structure to it, as well as consumer protections (which you've already enjoyed for years if you're in employer-sponsored group coverage).

There's no national program you gain access to if your employer doesn't offer insurance, you'll still need to go buy private insurance in your state.

Don't believe me, look at all the waivers that Pelosi and Obama have given to Union shops and restuarants that they like, it's all over the place, it you are a favored person, you get the waiver, it not, you get to pay.

Those are waivers from one page of the legislation, the one requiring a phase-out of annual limits on insurance policies between now and 2014. A small percentage of health insurance plans have annual limits on benefits and the law seeks to end that; however, some of those plans would be destabilized by that change and, if they could demonstrate that this is the case, they can avoid that change until 2014 (the GAO looked into the waiver process and found the process to be clean, with approvals and denials based on a numerical standard for the premium increase caused by the annual limit phaseout; by the way, most of the denied applications were union plans).

The actual impact of that annual limit phase is small because annual limits aren't particularly prevalent:

Only 8 percent of large employers, 14 percent of small employers and 19 percent of individual market policies impose an annual limit and thus would be directly impacted by these interim final regulations. [54] In the first year of implementation (beginning September 23, 2010), it is estimated that less than 0.08 percent (less than one tenth of one percent) of large employer plans, approximately 2.6 percent of small employer plans, and 2.3 percent of individual plans would have to raise their annual limit to $750,000. [55] This first-year increase in annual limits would potentially affect an estimated 1,670,000 persons across the three markets. The second year of the phase-in, beginning September 23, 2011, would affect additional plans and policies, requiring a cumulative 0.7 percent of large employer plans, 3.9 percent of small employer plans, and 5.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $1,250,000. The second-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 3,278,250 persons across the three markets. The third and final year of the phase-in period (beginning on September 23, 2012) would affect additional plans and policies requiring a cumulative 2.4 percent of large employer plans, 8.1 percent of small employer plans and 14.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $2 million. The third-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 8,104,500 persons across the three markets. Note that the estimated number of plans and people affected are upper-bound estimates since they do not take into account grandfathered health plans and plans that receive a waiver from the annual limits policy.

» Why Did Unionized Companies Get so Many Obamacare Waivers? - Big Government

(CMS) and other agencies with concerns and suggestions for revising the plan.

The majority of the email communications relate to the waivers granted by HHS exempting companies and unions from the minimum annual cap on the amount payable to an individual in benefits. (Many companies argue these caps will force them to either drop coverage or raise premiums.) The Obamacare waivers enable these companies and unions to keep their existing plans in place until January 1, 2014, when covered expenses will no longer be limited by a cap. (Just wait and see the chaos that occurs should Obamacare somehow withstand judicial scrutiny and become the law of the land.)

In a general sense, Judicial Watch simply wants to know the criteria by which a company or union is granted one of these waivers. We want to know who got them and who didn’t. We want to know what conditions mandate approval and which mandate rejection. But HHS is mum on these questions. This first batch of 3,500 pages is, believe it or not, just the tip of the iceberg of the thousands of other documents the “transparent” Obama administration continues to withhold from us in contemptuous violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Which is an especially troubling problem considering the fact that Big Labor seems to be getting big favors from HHS in the form of these waivers

 

[Mr.Nick]

Definition of mandate:

'A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey."

Did you know that wearing clothing in public is a mandate in all 50 states??

Did you know that having a valid driver's licence to drive a car- is a mandate in most states??

Did you know that it is mandated that an individual provides care for their children, housing, food and clothing or be jailed for neglect?

Conservatives "tout" personal responsibility, yet are reluctant to enforce it with a mandate. Do they think they can wish it true?

I am totally against Obamacare as it is a federal takeover of healthcare, but I am not against a state mandate and state control of healthcare. Personally, I have become sick and tired of paying for people who show up in our emergency rooms, drove their new car there, come in with the latest version of the I-pad, while I pick up the tab for their medical costs through higher premiums and higher taxes. What say you? Are you a conservative who believes in " personal responsibility," and if so, how are you going to implement "personal responsibility," when it comes to health care without a mandate to do so? Wish it true?

"Personal responsibility" (as you put it) should be a natural human trait.

I don't understand how anyone could be opposed to that...

 

[Maple]

You will be thrown into a medicaid type system should Obama care be implemented, that is my entire point. Employers will dump their coverage of their employees as it will not be advantageous to cover them anymore, it will be cheaper to dump them into a national program.

But there isn't a national program. The structure of of our health system in broad strokes isn't different from what it is right now: Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (the difference being that under the ACA, Medicaid is available to all of the poor and not just some, as is the case now), private insurance for everyone else.

If you're not in a group or employer-sponsored private plan, then you buy insurance (high-deductible, if you want) in the individual market, just as is the case now. The difference is that at least some of the individual market in your state will have some structure to it, as well as consumer protections (which you've already enjoyed for years if you're in employer-sponsored group coverage).

There's no national program you gain access to if your employer doesn't offer insurance, you'll still need to go buy private insurance in your state.



Those are waivers from one page of the legislation, the one requiring a phase-out of annual limits on insurance policies between now and 2014. A small percentage of health insurance plans have annual limits on benefits and the law seeks to end that; however, some of those plans would be destabilized by that change and, if they could demonstrate that this is the case, they can avoid that change until 2014 (the GAO looked into the waiver process and found the process to be clean, with approvals and denials based on a numerical standard for the premium increase caused by the annual limit phaseout; by the way, most of the denied applications were union plans).

The actual impact of that annual limit phase is small because annual limits aren't particularly prevalent:

Only 8 percent of large employers, 14 percent of small employers and 19 percent of individual market policies impose an annual limit and thus would be directly impacted by these interim final regulations. [54] In the first year of implementation (beginning September 23, 2010), it is estimated that less than 0.08 percent (less than one tenth of one percent) of large employer plans, approximately 2.6 percent of small employer plans, and 2.3 percent of individual plans would have to raise their annual limit to $750,000. [55] This first-year increase in annual limits would potentially affect an estimated 1,670,000 persons across the three markets. The second year of the phase-in, beginning September 23, 2011, would affect additional plans and policies, requiring a cumulative 0.7 percent of large employer plans, 3.9 percent of small employer plans, and 5.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $1,250,000. The second-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 3,278,250 persons across the three markets. The third and final year of the phase-in period (beginning on September 23, 2012) would affect additional plans and policies requiring a cumulative 2.4 percent of large employer plans, 8.1 percent of small employer plans and 14.3 percent of individual policies to increase their annual limit to $2 million. The third-year increase in annual limits would affect an estimated 8,104,500 persons across the three markets. Note that the estimated number of plans and people affected are upper-bound estimates since they do not take into account grandfathered health plans and plans that receive a waiver from the annual limits policy.

» Why Did Unionized Companies Get so Many Obamacare Waivers? - Big Government

(CMS) and other agencies with concerns and suggestions for revising the plan.

The majority of the email communications relate to the waivers granted by HHS exempting companies and unions from the minimum annual cap on the amount payable to an individual in benefits. (Many companies argue these caps will force them to either drop coverage or raise premiums.) The Obamacare waivers enable these companies and unions to keep their existing plans in place until January 1, 2014, when covered expenses will no longer be limited by a cap. (Just wait and see the chaos that occurs should Obamacare somehow withstand judicial scrutiny and become the law of the land.)

In a general sense, Judicial Watch simply wants to know the criteria by which a company or union is granted one of these waivers. We want to know who got them and who didn’t. We want to know what conditions mandate approval and which mandate rejection. But HHS is mum on these questions. This first batch of 3,500 pages is, believe it or not, just the tip of the iceberg of the thousands of other documents the “transparent” Obama administration continues to withhold from us in contemptuous violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Which is an especially troubling problem considering the fact that Big Labor seems to be getting big favors from HHS in the form of these waivers

We are all going to be forced into a one payer system, if that is not evident both by your post and mine, I don't know what it will take to convince anyone that this is a terrible way to reform healthcare. It's really not about healthcare, it is about a takeover of 6% of our economy.

 

[Greenbeard]

In a general sense, Judicial Watch simply wants to know the criteria by which a company or union is granted one of these waivers.

This isn't a great mystery: the waivers are for those plans that would experience significant (>10%) premium increases or benefit decreases as a result of phasing out the annual limit in the policy.

The GAO audit corroborated that:

CCIIO granted waivers on the basis of an application’s projected significant increase in premiums or significant reduction in access to health care benefits. According to CCIIO officials, applications with a projected premium increase of 10 percent or more tended to be approved while applications with a projected premium increase of 6 percent or less tended to be denied. Applications with a premium increase between 7 and 9 percent warranted additional staff reviews to determine if the application met the agency’s criteria. In corroboration, among our 5 percent sample of approved applications, we found that CCIIO granted waivers mostly for applications that projected the annual limit restriction would result in a significant premium increase of more than 10 percent, in addition to a significant decrease in access to benefits. Conversely, most of the denied applications projected a premium increase of 6 percent or less.

The vast majority of applicants got waivers because they were able to demonstrate those conditions; as I said, of the small amount of applicants who were denied, the majority were unions.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is a conservative mantra- yet conservatives don't want to enforce it when it comes to healthcare mandates imposed by states. They want to "wish" it true.

How is enforcing personal responsibility, personal responsibility?

Seems like a contradiction if you ask me.

Well, as long as you are willing to pay for someone else's lack of personal responsibility, they will gladly let ya. I am stunned that you are willing to do so. I am not.

Now you are just projecting on me. I never said that. I simply said you can't enforce personal responsibility. That would be no different than enforcing the purchase of healthcare.

 

[Greenbeard]

We are all going to be forced into a one payer system, if that is not evident both by your post and mine, I don't know what it will take to convince anyone that this is a terrible way to reform healthcare.

This is simply false. I'm not sure how you can post a thread about an individual mandate to buy private insurance chosen from multiple competing private payers and not recognize that this is the antithesis of a single-payer system.

 

[Wiseacre]

The thrust of your OP seems to be a mandate to force personal responsibility for healthcare, which really isn't possible. Be nice if we could, but we just don't have the money any more. Not everyone can shoulder that burden, some can't due to a disability of some kind, some can't because they're unemployed, some can't cuz they don't make enough to cover their necessities and pay a healthcare insurance premium. As a society, we're not going to refuse them care, and in that process some others who are less deserving get a free ride.

I'm personally responsible only for myself and my family. I accept that responsibility, and also the collective responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves. But I do not accept the responsibility to care for those who could take care of themselves but choose not to. It gets hard sometimes to determine where the line is between those who deserve it and those who don't.

As much as I care about personal responsibility, I also care about freedom of choice. I cannot agree to a gov't mandate to carry health insurance, that is a choice for which there should be consequences. Certainly we do not allow people to die in the streets, that's why we mandate hospitals provide emergency care. Other than that, I don't feel responsible for someone else's decision. And it's not like they don't have clinics and providers that may help regardless of the ability to pay. It's on the uninsured person to find a way, IMHO.

 

[Flopper]

it is not a takeover of the healthcare system no matter how many times you repete that lie

It is a total and complete takeover of healthcare because it is designed to throw us all into a medicaid type system whether we like it or not. That's a fact.

Also it can not be a one size fits all. Different states have different rates of disease, for instance, in my state we have a higher incidence of MS, whereas Kentucky has a higher incidence of Obesity and type II diabetes. Car insurance takes the rate of accidents by using zip codes and determines from those stats what you are quoted for car insurance. Health insurance does the same thing, it takes the rate and incidence of the disease in your area, the cost of treatment for those diseases, in your area and determines the quote. A national " one size fits all system will never, ever work. It is a state issue- period- not a national one.

What say you about " personal responsibility" and the mandate to purchase your own health care plan?

You must be getting all your information from right wing blogs. Under the healthcare law, those with incomes of less than 133% above poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. That’s a family income of $29,000 a year for a family of 4. Individuals and small business, less than 50 employees will be buying their insurance from insurance companies listed on regional exchanges. For those working in medium to large companies, they will get their insurance just as they do today, group insurance through their employer.

This is certainly not one size fit’s all.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Look maple let's cut to the chase. You should not have titled this thread the way you did. You have a problem with obamacare as many of us do. But technically speaking forcing us to buy something as important as healthcare is forcing us to be responsible. All be it wrong to force us to so anything but it is enforcing personal responsibility at the expense of our freedom to choose our own path. Your title is wrong for this thread.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The thrust of your OP seems to be a mandate to force personal responsibility for healthcare, which really isn't possible. Be nice if we could, but we just don't have the money any more. Not everyone can shoulder that burden, some can't due to a disability of some kind, some can't because they're unemployed, some can't cuz they don't make enough to cover their necessities and pay a healthcare insurance premium. As a society, we're not going to refuse them care, and in that process some others who are less deserving get a free ride.

I'm personally responsible only for myself and my family. I accept that responsibility, and also the collective responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves. But I do not accept the responsibility to care for those who could take care of themselves but choose not to. It gets hard sometimes to determine where the line is between those who deserve it and those who don't.

As much as I care about personal responsibility, I also care about freedom of choice. I cannot agree to a gov't mandate to carry health insurance, that is a choice for which there should be consequences. Certainly we do not allow people to die in the streets, that's why we mandate hospitals provide emergency care. Other than that, I don't feel responsible for someone else's decision. And it's not like they don't have clinics and providers that may help regardless of the ability to pay. It's on the uninsured person to find a way, IMHO.

Ignorant progressive know nothing about health or biology...

It's funny how legislators have become medical doctors all of a sudden.....

 

[JoeB131]

When you were young and healthy you did not need insurance??? That's a new one, because I have personally seen young 20 year olds come down with cancer, break their necks skiing, etc. And end up in the hospital for many, many, many months. Some even died. Good grief!!! They may think they are bullet proof but they are most definitely NOT. They need health insurance just as much as anyone else.

Well, yeah, but statistically, they don't get cancer as often as old people like me... um, er, I mean Old people.

The few that do have serious injuries without insurance and go to the emergency room really aren't the problem.

The problem is that medical inflation is creeping up three times the rate of normal inflation. The amount of medical attention you need goes up expontially the older you get. This is why Medicare was needed to start with, after 65, no insurance company would touch you.

So, really, RomneyCare forcing people to buy insurance they neither wanted or needed didn't do anything except give a payoff to Romney's Wall Street buddies.

 

[JoeB131]

» Why Did Unionized Companies Get so Many Obamacare Waivers? - Big Government

(CMS) and other agencies with concerns and suggestions for revising the plan.

The majority of the email communications relate to the waivers granted by HHS exempting companies and unions from the minimum annual cap on the amount payable to an individual in benefits. (Many companies argue these caps will force them to either drop coverage or raise premiums.) The Obamacare waivers enable these companies and unions to keep their existing plans in place until January 1, 2014, when covered expenses will no longer be limited by a cap. (Just wait and see the chaos that occurs should Obamacare somehow withstand judicial scrutiny and become the law of the land.)

In a general sense, Judicial Watch simply wants to know the criteria by which a company or union is granted one of these waivers. We want to know who got them and who didn’t. We want to know what conditions mandate approval and which mandate rejection. But HHS is mum on these questions. This first batch of 3,500 pages is, believe it or not, just the tip of the iceberg of the thousands of other documents the “transparent” Obama administration continues to withhold from us in contemptuous violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Which is an especially troubling problem considering the fact that Big Labor seems to be getting big favors from HHS in the form of these waivers

Well, the thing is, Union insurance benefits are usually so much better than what companies provide to start with. They really aren't the problem. A company can stick you with the cut rate insurance and you can't do jack diddly about it. I always dread the annual "insurance meeting" at work because it's going to be, "How are they going to screw us this year?"

Union plans, they screw the members, they usually find themselves out of jobs when the rank and file vote their asses out.

 

[Flopper]

» Why Did Unionized Companies Get so Many Obamacare Waivers? - Big Government

(CMS) and other agencies with concerns and suggestions for revising the plan.

The majority of the email communications relate to the waivers granted by HHS exempting companies and unions from the minimum annual cap on the amount payable to an individual in benefits. (Many companies argue these caps will force them to either drop coverage or raise premiums.) The Obamacare waivers enable these companies and unions to keep their existing plans in place until January 1, 2014, when covered expenses will no longer be limited by a cap. (Just wait and see the chaos that occurs should Obamacare somehow withstand judicial scrutiny and become the law of the land.)

In a general sense, Judicial Watch simply wants to know the criteria by which a company or union is granted one of these waivers. We want to know who got them and who didn’t. We want to know what conditions mandate approval and which mandate rejection. But HHS is mum on these questions. This first batch of 3,500 pages is, believe it or not, just the tip of the iceberg of the thousands of other documents the “transparent” Obama administration continues to withhold from us in contemptuous violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Which is an especially troubling problem considering the fact that Big Labor seems to be getting big favors from HHS in the form of these waivers

Well, the thing is, Union insurance benefits are usually so much better than what companies provide to start with. They really aren't the problem. A company can stick you with the cut rate insurance and you can't do jack diddly about it. I always dread the annual "insurance meeting" at work because it's going to be, "How are they going to screw us this year?"

Union plans, they screw the members, they usually find themselves out of jobs when the rank and file vote their asses out.

A lot of the really bad insurance is being eliminated, policies with low lifetime maximums, exclusions of serious illnesses, and of course policies that have higher premiums when you get sick.

 

[mskafka]

Definition of mandate:

'A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey."

Did you know that wearing clothing in public is a mandate in all 50 states??

Did you know that having a valid driver's licence to drive a car- is a mandate in most states??

Did you know that it is mandated that an individual provides care for their children, housing, food and clothing or be jailed for neglect?

Conservatives "tout" personal responsibility, yet are reluctant to enforce it with a mandate. Do they think they can wish it true?

I am totally against Obamacare as it is a federal takeover of healthcare, but I am not against a state mandate and state control of healthcare. Personally, I have become sick and tired of paying for people who show up in our emergency rooms, drove their new car there, come in with the latest version of the I-pad, while I pick up the tab for their medical costs through higher premiums and higher taxes. What say you? Are you a conservative who believes in " personal responsibility," and if so, how are you going to implement "personal responsibility," when it comes to health care without a mandate to do so? Wish it true?

I am waiting- conservatives for your reply.

Because many people never actually witness this (although it is a daily and nightly occurence) I'm not sure whether they think that we who do see it are lying about it, or those who oppose health insurance reform just don't care.

 

[mskafka]

As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

Do I think that government-run health insurance for all is good? No, not really. With some of the gov't programs of the past...this would take a huge leap of faith for all of us.

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

Most of it is apprehension at the thought of the government being capable of running something effciently, I suspect. But then one wonders: if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases? Please don't use the British or Canadian example. What do you think, hypothetically?

 

[dblack]

As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

And why do you assume the only way to correct this is to force everyone to buy corporate health insurance?

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

I'm opposed to it because the last thing we need is to force the same bad solution on everyone. The prevailing group health insurance model is fundamentally broken. Forcing it on everyone via state mandate seems bizarre to me, if not cruel.

What we need is more freedom to seek alternatives, not less. We need to let the failing insurance model expire (in reality the entire PPACA is an insurance industry bailout) and break up regulations that prevent people from exploring better alternatives.

... if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases?

I don't think so. Even if all doctors and hospitals were able to collect timely payments on everything service billed, prices would still continue to rise. The problem driving health care inflation isn't overdue bills, it's that there is no demand for cheap health care. That will be affected by insuring everyone, but unfortunately, the effect will be to make it worse. It will increase demand with no downward price pressure other than token state regulation (which will face an army of lobbyists resisting every effort to cut health industry profits).

 

[mskafka]

As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

And why do you assume the only way to correct this is to force everyone to buy corporate health insurance?

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

I'm opposed to it because the last thing we need is to force the same bad solution on everyone. The prevailing group health insurance model is fundamentally broken. Forcing it on everyone via state mandate seems bizarre to me, if not cruel.

What we need is more freedom to seek alternatives, not less. We need to let the failing insurance model expire (in reality the entire PPACA is an insurance industry bailout) and break up regulations that prevent people from exploring better alternatives.

... if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases?

I don't think so. Even if all doctors and hospitals were able to collect timely payments on everything service billed, prices would still continue to rise. The problem driving health care inflation isn't overdue bills, it's that there is no demand for cheap health care. That will be affected by insuring everyone, but unfortunately, the effect will be to make it worse. It will increase demand with no downward price pressure other than token state regulation (which will face an army of lobbyists resisting every effort to cut health industry profits).

Ooooh...you've misunderstood me. I don't advocate forcing others to buy corporate health insurance. I'm not sure what the answer is. I have it. And while I'm glad that I do, as it whittles down the edges of the costs a little, it still isn't that great. A friend of mine has the same insurance. She had to go to ER for 10 sutures. $800 out of pocket! OUCH! But it would have been much worse without the insurance.

I'm confused. Are you saying that everyone shouldn't HAVE to have health insurance? Maybe I misunderstood you.

Demand for cheap healthcare. That interests me. That's going to be difficult as long as physicians have to pay huge portions of their salaries for malpractice insurance. And the WORK involved! JEEZ! One patient contact for me, at my level (if the patient is very sick, or injured) is AT LEAST and hour and a half of documentation. And this is to avoid lawsuits, and to prove your competency to the state in which one is licensed, and to your employer-where there are usually people hired to check documentation to make sure that providers aren't killing patients. (more $$$) We're not going to work for free.

And then there are hospitals who eat the cost of uncompensated care. My understanding is that these medical centers get private grants, and government grants....so we all pay for it.

But the demand for cheaper healthcare. How could we go about bringing that to fruition?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you a conservative who believes in " personal responsibility," and if so, how are you going to implement "personal responsibility," when it comes to health care without a mandate to do so? Wish it true?

When it comes healthcare conservatives plan to do nothing, the question is moot.

It is a total and complete takeover of healthcare because it is designed to throw us all into a medicaid type system whether we like it or not. That's a fact.

No, it’s not. It’s not even a Medicare-type system, unfortunately.

You will be thrown into a medicaid type system should Obama care be implemented, that is my entire point. Employers will dump their coverage of their employees as it will not be advantageous to cover them anymore, it will be cheaper to dump them into a national program.

As noted, how can someone be ‘dumped’ into a ‘national program’ when there isn’t one. Nor does the ACA create such a program.

And the IM has nothing to do with ‘personal responsibility,’ it merely regulates commerce, as Congress is authorized to do per Constitutional case law:

The minimum-essential coverage mandate fits within the Supreme Court’s commerce clause jurisprudence. Even accepting the claimants’ characterization of the law as regulating “non-activity,” the law still concerns individual decisions that, when aggregated, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Individuals cannot disclaim the need to obtain health care and to pay for it, as virtually everyone at some point will consume healthcare services. In this sense, it is hard to characterize self-insurance as non-action, as opposed to one of many possible actions an individual may take in determining how to pay for health care. Whether looked at as a mechanism for providing affordable medical care for all or an
unprecedented act of national paternalism, both characterizations of the individual mandate go to a policy debate that the American people and their representatives have had, and will continue to have, over the appropriate role of the national government in our lives, the merits of which do not by themselves provide a cognizable basis for invalidating the law.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

This has nothing to do with concern about ‘personal responsibility’ or an ‘over-reaching’ Federal government, it has to do with the president’s enemies attacking his premiere legislative accomplishment in an effort to realize some perceived political advantage.