The tax man cometh to police you on health care

[LoneLaugher]

My "side" has no problem admitting fact number 1. We scream that from the rooftops every day.

I don't recall the Democrats pushing significant tort reform, which will be one of the key components in reducing costs. Do you feel that would be on the table, if the Republicans gave in on some other key components?

.

If you can support the use of he words "key components" in that comment, we might have a more fruitful discussion.

I think a person ( or family ) should be able to sue a medical professional in cases involving gross negligence resulting in injury or death. But I agree that we have become far too litigious in this nation and that overall medical costs are adversly influenced as a result.

I lived in Japan for a decade. Medical malpractice suits exist there....but they are far less common. They have figured it out, somehow.

 

[dblack]

People who choose to go without insurance are gambling with my money.

How so? If you're referring to laws that require some hospitals to treat people without insurance (they still bill them, btw - and most pay), then why aren't you complaining about those?

As I mentioned, people going without insurance aren't harming you at all. Some people will default on health care bills (this happens with the insured too fwiw) and when they do, some of the cost might be transferred to society. But if that's your beef, why not address that issue directly, instead of trying to dictate how other people plan for health care expenses?

 

[Too Tall]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Shame on you for demeaning the 30 million poor people who can't afford health insurance. Many of them are free loading moochers because they don't have or are unable to get a job.

Never said anything about poor people, just you moochers. Learn the difference.

I pay for my Heath Insurance shitstain.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I don't recall the Democrats pushing significant tort reform, which will be one of the key components in reducing costs. Do you feel that would be on the table, if the Republicans gave in on some other key components?

.

As long as the ABA can lobby, tort reform won't happen. As long as the insurance industry can lobby, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines won't happen. As long as Big Pharma can lobby, prescription prices will never come down.

These 3 things would lower insurance costs significantly, without the massive new bureaucracy that is the ACA.

Watch out, you're getting dangerously close to advocating universal healthcare. Wouldn't want you to be mistaken for someone who uses their brain.

Far from it! I'm advocating free markets rather than the government-supported monopolies we have at present.

 

[Mac1958]

My "side" has no problem admitting fact number 1. We scream that from the rooftops every day.

I don't recall the Democrats pushing significant tort reform, which will be one of the key components in reducing costs. Do you feel that would be on the table, if the Republicans gave in on some other key components?

.

If you can support the use of he words "key components" in that comment, we might have a more fruitful discussion.

I think a person ( or family ) should be able to sue a medical professional in cases involving gross negligence resulting in injury or death. But I agree that we have become far too litigious in this nation and that overall medical costs are adversly influenced as a result.

I lived in Japan for a decade. Medical malpractice suits exist there....but they are far less common. They have figured it out, somehow.

Watakushi wa Nihon e ikimashita. 1973. Exchange student. Love that country.

We can't or shouldn't eliminate all lawsuits, and equilibrium is always critical. Right now, so much superfluous diagnostic testing is done just to avoid lawsuits that it's become a caricature. Plus, in Mac1958's version of our health care system, a robust private insurance industry would supplement a basic Medicare For All chassis, so health care consumers would still need protection.

And yes, there would be many key components to mitigating costs, tort reform is just one.

.

 

[Freewill]

You know what I would like to see which will never happen? I would like to see all who work for the IRS walk off the job in protest of this take away of American freedom. But it won't happen. The pencil necked geeks that were made fun of in High School will extract their revenge because now they have ultimate power. I don't know if I had anything but fear concerning the IRS but now I know I have zero respect.

You are one to watch, Freewill. You've got a keen grasp on reality. Not to mention your superior communication skills.

Hey!!! Didn't you learn from my post? You should have definitely put one or two sarcasm tags in your post. I am going to rep you any way, because what you posted is absolutely true. My one defense, English is my second language, and I don't have a first.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't recall the Democrats pushing significant tort reform, which will be one of the key components in reducing costs. Do you feel that would be on the table, if the Republicans gave in on some other key components?

.

If you can support the use of he words "key components" in that comment, we might have a more fruitful discussion.

I think a person ( or family ) should be able to sue a medical professional in cases involving gross negligence resulting in injury or death. But I agree that we have become far too litigious in this nation and that overall medical costs are adversly influenced as a result.

I lived in Japan for a decade. Medical malpractice suits exist there....but they are far less common. They have figured it out, somehow.

Watakushi wa Nihon e ikimashita. 1973. Exchange student. Love that country.

We can't or shouldn't eliminate all lawsuits, and equilibrium is always critical. Right now, so much superfluous diagnostic testing is done just to avoid lawsuits that it's become a caricature. Plus, in Mac1958's version of our health care system, a robust private insurance industry would supplement a basic Medicare For All chassis, so health care consumers would still need protection.

And yes, there would be many key components to mitigating costs, tort reform is just one.

.

Soo desu ka. Ore wa Hirakata-shi no Kansai Gaidai ni ikimashita. Anata wa doko de sumimashita ka.

Your system sounds a lot like that of Japan's. For those who care:

Health Care Abroad: Japan - NYTimes.com

 

[Vel]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

 

[RDD_1210]

People who choose to go without insurance are gambling with my money.

How so? If you're referring to laws that require some hospitals to treat people without insurance (they still bill them, btw - and most pay), then why aren't you complaining about those?

As I mentioned, people going without insurance aren't harming you at all. Some people will default on health care bills (this happens with the insured too fwiw) and when they do, some of the cost might be transferred to society. But if that's your beef, why not address that issue directly, instead of trying to dictate how other people plan for health care expenses?

The ACA does address that issue by

1) removing caps on coverage limits which caused people with insurance to still go in to medical bankruptcy

2) requiring all those who can afford it to purchase insurance

It's not "how" people plan for healthcare expenses that is the issue, it's the total lack of planning that is the problem. Ask any of the geniuses here who say they will go without health insurance by choice how they would pay for a major illness and not one of them has any idea. Not one. They just think, well that hopefully wont happen to me. But it does happen, to millions of people. It could be fixed by dramatically decreasing the cost of medical care across the board but that hasn't happened and it wont happen with insurance companies and big pharma in full control of the system.

 

[RDD_1210]

Shame on you for demeaning the 30 million poor people who can't afford health insurance. Many of them are free loading moochers because they don't have or are unable to get a job.

Never said anything about poor people, just you moochers. Learn the difference.

I pay for my Heath Insurance shitstain.

Good for you. Cookie?

 

[RDD_1210]

As long as the ABA can lobby, tort reform won't happen. As long as the insurance industry can lobby, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines won't happen. As long as Big Pharma can lobby, prescription prices will never come down.

These 3 things would lower insurance costs significantly, without the massive new bureaucracy that is the ACA.

Watch out, you're getting dangerously close to advocating universal healthcare. Wouldn't want you to be mistaken for someone who uses their brain.

Far from it! I'm advocating free markets rather than the government-supported monopolies we have at present.

LOL, "free markets" where insurance companies will lower prices magically once they are free of the shackles of "evil government" who forces americans to buy their product. Poor them.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

I purchase it through my employer.

 

[Mac1958]

If you can support the use of he words "key components" in that comment, we might have a more fruitful discussion.

I think a person ( or family ) should be able to sue a medical professional in cases involving gross negligence resulting in injury or death. But I agree that we have become far too litigious in this nation and that overall medical costs are adversly influenced as a result.

I lived in Japan for a decade. Medical malpractice suits exist there....but they are far less common. They have figured it out, somehow.

Watakushi wa Nihon e ikimashita. 1973. Exchange student. Love that country.

We can't or shouldn't eliminate all lawsuits, and equilibrium is always critical. Right now, so much superfluous diagnostic testing is done just to avoid lawsuits that it's become a caricature. Plus, in Mac1958's version of our health care system, a robust private insurance industry would supplement a basic Medicare For All chassis, so health care consumers would still need protection.

And yes, there would be many key components to mitigating costs, tort reform is just one.

.

Soo desu ka. Ore wa Hirakata-shi no Kansai Gaidai ni ikimashita. Anata wa doko de sumimashita ka.

Your system sounds a lot like that of Japan's. For those who care:

Health Care Abroad: Japan - NYTimes.com

I think you're asking where I lived. I was on Sado Island, a little rice patty just west of the middle of Honshu.

The free market Medicare supplemental system is already in place, of course, with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans. The private fee for service (PFFS) Medicare Advantage plans won't work because they're too costly to operate, but the PPO and HMO plans provide far more coverage than regular Medicare at less cost, so this would be an easy transition. Let the people choose their supplemental coverage.

Two keys to my brilliant plan: First, the cost of health care delivery must be significantly reduced. That's where we talk about tort reform, a more robust national electronic records system, stuff like that. Second, doctor reimbursement would have to increase, since Medicare reimburses a fraction of what insurance companies do. So between increased reimbursement and cost mitigation, doctors and other providers need to be able to do what they do.

One MASSIVE savings to my brilliant plan would be the elimination of most Medicaid costs, since we would all have the same foundational plan. There would probably need to be some money to assist with supplemental coverage, something like that.

More money needed? A 1% to 5% across the board tax may be needed. Horrors. We already have a Medicare payroll tax. And speaking of payroll taxes, imagine how much pressure this plan would take off employers' backs. Let that one sink in a bit.

So:

1. Significant cost mitigation and savings strategy
2. Acceptable provider reimbursement schedules
3. Medicare For All chassis to improve overall health and lower costs
4. Robust free market supplemental insurance program

I have no doubt my brilliant plan would piss off folks on both ends of the spectrum, which I generally consider to be a hopeful sign.

.

 

[Freewill]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

There is no difference. Benefits paid by the employer are considered income, maybe not taxable income but they are an expense to the company just as are wages.

 

[Vel]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

I purchase it through my employer.

So does your employer pays the the majority of the premium or do you?

 

[Vel]

It's time you moochers stop free loading off the rest of us who purchase health insurance.

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

There is no difference. Benefits paid by the employer are considered income, maybe not taxable income but they are an expense to the company just as are wages.

There is a huge difference if you're calling others irresponsible. Basically the ACA is saying that most workers aren't responsible enough to take care of their own needs and that the more responsible employer needs to take care of it to see that it's done. It would be no different for the government to demand that your employer take what they might have paid you in wages and buy your groceries because they don't find you responsible enough to spend your wages on appropriate food.

 

[dblack]

People who choose to go without insurance are gambling with my money.

How so? If you're referring to laws that require some hospitals to treat people without insurance (they still bill them, btw - and most pay), then why aren't you complaining about those?

As I mentioned, people going without insurance aren't harming you at all. Some people will default on health care bills (this happens with the insured too fwiw) and when they do, some of the cost might be transferred to society. But if that's your beef, why not address that issue directly, instead of trying to dictate how other people plan for health care expenses?

The ACA does address that issue by

1) removing caps on coverage limits which caused people with insurance to still go in to medical bankruptcy

2) requiring all those who can afford it to purchase insurance

No, you don't get off that easy. You're skipping out on my key point. If your beef is with laws that require that costs for uncompensated care are transferred to "you" (actually, they're transferred to all of us in various ways - not just you and not just people who are insured) then why aren't you lobbying to have those laws changed. It seems like a far simpler approach than indulging ever more corporate/government collusion.

It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of safety nets for the poor in favor of a system that makes all of us equally dependent and equally powerless to decide for ourselves.

It could be fixed by dramatically decreasing the cost of medical care across the board but that hasn't happened and it wont happen with insurance companies and big pharma in full control of the system.

This perplexes me, in light of the fact that you are vigorously defending a law that grants them even more control. What gives? Doesn't your statement imply that we should do the opposite?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is called being responsible. If a person decides not to be responsible then the government will force them to be. So if you have a decent job and pay for your own benefits then you are responsible for paying for those who don't work as hard. If you don't want too tough, the government will force your compliance to what they say is your responsibility.

Yep, just like car insurance.

Why should I have to pay someone elses medical expenses? I'm sick of rw's whining because they have to pay their own way.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you purchase your health insurance or does your employer?

I purchase it through my employer.

So does your employer pays the the majority of the premium or do you?

Oh they pay a good majority chunk of it. I can't wait to see where you're going with this! The anticipation is killing me.

 

[RDD_1210]

How so? If you're referring to laws that require some hospitals to treat people without insurance (they still bill them, btw - and most pay), then why aren't you complaining about those?

As I mentioned, people going without insurance aren't harming you at all. Some people will default on health care bills (this happens with the insured too fwiw) and when they do, some of the cost might be transferred to society. But if that's your beef, why not address that issue directly, instead of trying to dictate how other people plan for health care expenses?

The ACA does address that issue by

1) removing caps on coverage limits which caused people with insurance to still go in to medical bankruptcy

2) requiring all those who can afford it to purchase insurance

No, you don't get off that easy. You're skipping out on my key point. If your beef is with laws that require that costs for uncompensated care are transferred to "you" (actually, they're transferred to all of us in various ways - not just you and not just people who are insured) then why aren't you lobbying to have those laws changed. It seems like a far simpler approach than indulging ever more corporate/government collusion.

And what law would that be? Costs are transferred to us simply for profit motives. If a hospital gets stiffed on a payment by someone uninsured they raise their prices to make up for it. The rest of us pay those higher prices and thus pay for those who choose not to pay. If there is a law that forces this action to take place, let me know.

It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of safety nets for the poor in favor of a system that makes all of us equally dependent and equally powerless to decide for ourselves.

It could be fixed by dramatically decreasing the cost of medical care across the board but that hasn't happened and it wont happen with insurance companies and big pharma in full control of the system.

This perplexes me, in light of the fact that you are vigorously defending a law that grants them even more control. What gives? Doesn't your statement imply that we should do the opposite?

I thought I made myself clear in other threads that I don't love the ACA and wish it went MUCH further to take power away from insurance companies. But it didn't. However as flawed as it is, it is still a better than what we had before which was only those who could afford it could buy in to our shitty system, now everyone gets to enjoy the same shit sandwich. As soon as someone aggressively pursues a public option or even universal healthcare, I'd be all ears.