Equality for All!!!

[Valerie]

What health care choices or freedoms do we have now? Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!

Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

Fee for service? Those were the days!

 

[Care4all]

What health care choices or freedoms do we have now? Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!

Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

 

[Valerie]

Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

Good point care, that's why they created the "risk pool", etc. It's a complicated issue.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

Good point care, that's why they created the "risk pool", etc. It's a complicated issue.

complicated and nearly as expensive.

 

[Oddball]

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

The same person who foots the bill for your car and your house.

Aside from that, presenting the extreme case as the norm is as intellectually disingenuous as it gets.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?

To help the insurance industry?

Or to lower "we the people's" health care insurance costs....?

If it is the latter did prices go down for your health insurance?

Because the profits certainly went up for the Insurers....

What's the constitutional authority for issuing parking tickets, or for that matter, what's the constitutional authority for starting a national health insurance program? If the government only did things that were explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there likely would be no SS or Medicare or educational programs or government loans and many fewer government taxes. There are many who would think that a good thing, but I don't believe you are one of them.

No one is talking about capping damages for the actual costs incurred, but only for intangibles such as pain and suffering. How about if instead of talking about capping damages, a law set out a schedule of awards for these damages such as so much for the pain and suffering due to the loss of the ability to walk, or so much for the loss of the ability to speak or have sex, etc.? Or do you think we should leave the amount of damages for pain and suffering up to how juries feel at the moment? Without such standards, can juries really provide equal justice, and if it's not equal justice, is it justice at all?

Those are good questions....i don't know the answers to....without alot of statistics in front of me to analyze.

I am not certain those types of caps could really be determined because each case would be different...loss of ability to have sex the rest of their lives, for a 20 year old male or a 20 year old female would be different than losing the ability to have sex for a 65 year old man injured or a 65 year old woman injured, ya know? I mean the younguns lost ability to bear offspring...

I just don't think it should be done...and from all that i have seen, where the juries awarded too much, the system has corrected such, on appeals....

We have test models, in the states that did institute caps in order to reduce health care costs and it HAS NOT DONE SO....

if this truly is the case, then why allow our federal government to get involved at all?

care

Of course, caps could be determined. Consider that by your values, the loss of the ability to have sex has a much greater value to the younger man than to the older man, but are you just imposing your values or do you have reason to believe so? Suppose the younger man had a relatively weak sex drive and anxiety issues associated with sex that greatly diminished his enjoyment and that he had other issues that made it unlikely he ever would have become a parent or would want to be; and suppose the older man seeing his powers diminished found each found each sexual experience especially precious and each a reminder of his youth, and that not being about to have sex now made him feel cut off from much of his earlier life. If you were sitting on both juries, you would have awarded the younger man too much and the older man too little for the actual pain and suffering they were experiencing.

Surely, Congress or a state legislature could devise a formula that would base the award on age and the ability to produce an offspring and deliver judgments just as unjust as you would have.

Healthcare costs are going to continue to increase no matter what we do because our population is aging and because newer technologies and medications to extend life and function are nearly always very expensive. Health insurance will either go down or go up more slowly if awards are capped, but this will happen slowly over time because premiums are determined largely on the basis of a moving average of past cost experiences and it will take time before the lower costs of litigation significantly effect that average.

 

[Valerie]

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

The same person who foots the bill for your car and your house.

Aside from that, presenting the extreme case as the norm is as intellectually disingenuous as it gets.

The extreme cases are merely a reality to consider, she didn't say it was the norm, speaking of disingenuous.....?

 

[Care4all]

What's the constitutional authority for issuing parking tickets, or for that matter, what's the constitutional authority for starting a national health insurance program? If the government only did things that were explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there likely would be no SS or Medicare or educational programs or government loans and many fewer government taxes. There are many who would think that a good thing, but I don't believe you are one of them.

No one is talking about capping damages for the actual costs incurred, but only for intangibles such as pain and suffering. How about if instead of talking about capping damages, a law set out a schedule of awards for these damages such as so much for the pain and suffering due to the loss of the ability to walk, or so much for the loss of the ability to speak or have sex, etc.? Or do you think we should leave the amount of damages for pain and suffering up to how juries feel at the moment? Without such standards, can juries really provide equal justice, and if it's not equal justice, is it justice at all?

Those are good questions....i don't know the answers to....without alot of statistics in front of me to analyze.

I am not certain those types of caps could really be determined because each case would be different...loss of ability to have sex the rest of their lives, for a 20 year old male or a 20 year old female would be different than losing the ability to have sex for a 65 year old man injured or a 65 year old woman injured, ya know? I mean the younguns lost ability to bear offspring...

I just don't think it should be done...and from all that i have seen, where the juries awarded too much, the system has corrected such, on appeals....

We have test models, in the states that did institute caps in order to reduce health care costs and it HAS NOT DONE SO....

if this truly is the case, then why allow our federal government to get involved at all?

care

Of course, caps could be determined. Consider that by your values, the loss of the ability to have sex has a much greater value to the younger man than to the older man, but are you just imposing your values or do you have reason to believe so? Suppose the younger man had a relatively weak sex drive and anxiety issues associated with sex that greatly diminished his enjoyment and that he had other issues that made it unlikely he ever would have become a parent or would want to be; and suppose the older man seeing his powers diminished found each found each sexual experience especially precious and each a reminder of his youth, and that not being about to have sex now made him feel cut off from much of his earlier life. If you were sitting on both juries, you would have awarded the younger man too much and the older man too little for the actual pain and suffering they were experiencing.

Surely, Congress or a state legislature could devise a formula that would base the award on age and the ability to produce an offspring and deliver judgments just as unjust as you would have.

Healthcare costs are going to continue to increase no matter what we do because our population is aging and because newer technologies and medications to extend life and function are nearly always very expensive. Health insurance will either go down or go up more slowly if awards are capped, but this will happen slowly over time because premiums are determined largely on the basis of a moving average of past cost experiences and it will take time before the lower costs of litigation significantly effect that average.

70 years without it for one, and 20 years without it for the other, with viagra.

and then you could have the Nun losing the ability to have sex or a eunich's loss of ability to have sex where it might not be that detrimental....

i don't like it that our government would determine this and for whom? we the people, or for their insurance buddies funding their campaigns and reelection? Smells corrupt, and will be corrupt and lesser penalties will probably be put in for key negligences, by the people whose pockets are being lined with gold....from the people or corporations or companies who would benefit most....

you are way more trusting of our government than i would have ever thought!???

care

 

[Oddball]

How would that work? you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?

The same person who foots the bill for your car and your house.

Aside from that, presenting the extreme case as the norm is as intellectually disingenuous as it gets.

The extreme cases are merely a reality to consider, she didn't say it was the norm, speaking of disingenuous.....?

They are also the rarest of occurrences, to be filed under hyperbole.

 

[Navy1960]

All Massachusetts residents are required to maintain health insurance. Health care reform works to improve the cost and quality of health care.

Health Care Reform - Mass.Gov
Financial Responsibility/Deeming Section 1902(a)(17)
To authorize Massachusetts to use for plan groups and individuals whose eligibility is
determined under the more liberal standards and methods, eligibility standards and
requirements that differ from those required under title XIX. This authority specifically
exempts the Commonwealth from the limits under section 1902(a)(17)(D) on whose
income and resources may be used to determine eligibility unless actually made
available, so that family income and resources may be used instead.
To authorize Massachusetts to deem income from any member of the family unit
(including any Medicaid eligible member) for purposes of determining income.
To authorize Massachusetts to provide coverage to the medically needy without offering
a spend-down for pregnant women, parents, children ages 0-18, and the disabled, and to
offer 1-month spend downs for people receiving community-based services as an
alternative to institutionalization, and non-institutionalized persons who are receiving
personal care attendant services at the onset of waivers.
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/eohhs/healthcare_reform/medicare_waiver_list.pdf

Health care reform in Massachusetts has led to a dramatic increase in the number of people with health insurance. But there's an unintended consequence: A sudden demand for primary care doctors has outpaced the supply.
Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage : NPR

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe

I had the opportunity to sit here and listen to Obama's town hall and can tell you that when you mandate no pre-exiting condition and along side a public option for health insurance one thing your not going to get is healthy competetion. This is a cost issue, and the cost issue needs to to be addressd. I did like the idea though of allowing for small business and individuals to pool together or create co-ops to buy healthcare as long as it's privately run.

 

[Care4all]

The same person who foots the bill for your car and your house.

Aside from that, presenting the extreme case as the norm is as intellectually disingenuous as it gets.

The extreme cases are merely a reality to consider, she didn't say it was the norm, speaking of disingenuous.....?

They are also the rarest of occurrences, to be filed under hyperbole.

Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?

Granted, the older you get, the more sickly one gets in general, but accidents to those between 20-30 are not that rare, and cancer isn't either....i've known a number of 20-30 yr old women who had gotten breast cancer, and that's just my immediate circle of friends and coworkers, and 3 guys that were in devasting car accidents, and 2 that had diabitis, one that was epileptic...a cousin....all in their youth....

maybe you are much younger than me and haven't seen as much as me to know any better, i'm not certain, but honestly, shit happens, when least expected...and it isn't as much of an exception as you may think, though perhaps it did appear to you that i meant that it happened all the time, i didn't....i was merely asking a question.

3 days in the hospital, depending the circumstances could be $25k to $125k.... 15 years ago, for a minor female surgery, i was in the hospital for 2.5 days and the bill was $25,000....today that would certainly be $60-70k....

i'm not shooting the idea down that ridding ourselves of insurance companies and paying for our own health care directly to those who provide it, isn't the way to go, or wouldn't reduce our costs, due to our individual involvement of knowing what things cost and rebeling against the costs if too high and losing the cost of the middleman we now pay....i just wouldn't know where to begin, or how to do it, where a huge donut whole of exceptions weren't present.

care

 

[rayboyusmc]

I know this will come as a suprise to many on the right, but a single payer healthcare system like Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare are not SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. The doctors etc are not employed by the government.

It isn't a lot different than what we have now with the government already reimbursing the Humana's etc of the country for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients and retired military.

This is just another chicken little the socilized sky is falling bullshit.

If we can pay less and get care par with other real industrialized countries, why are you wetting your pants?

 

[Care4all]

All Massachusetts residents are required to maintain health insurance. Health care reform works to improve the cost and quality of health care.

Health Care Reform - Mass.Gov
Financial Responsibility/Deeming Section 1902(a)(17)
To authorize Massachusetts to use for plan groups and individuals whose eligibility is
determined under the more liberal standards and methods, eligibility standards and
requirements that differ from those required under title XIX. This authority specifically
exempts the Commonwealth from the limits under section 1902(a)(17)(D) on whose
income and resources may be used to determine eligibility unless actually made
available, so that family income and resources may be used instead.
To authorize Massachusetts to deem income from any member of the family unit
(including any Medicaid eligible member) for purposes of determining income.
To authorize Massachusetts to provide coverage to the medically needy without offering
a spend-down for pregnant women, parents, children ages 0-18, and the disabled, and to
offer 1-month spend downs for people receiving community-based services as an
alternative to institutionalization, and non-institutionalized persons who are receiving
personal care attendant services at the onset of waivers.
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/eohhs/healthcare_reform/medicare_waiver_list.pdf

Health care reform in Massachusetts has led to a dramatic increase in the number of people with health insurance. But there's an unintended consequence: A sudden demand for primary care doctors has outpaced the supply.
Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage : NPR

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe

I had the opportunity to sit here and listen to Obama's town hall and can tell you that when you mandate no pre-exiting condition and along side a public option for health insurance one thing your not going to get is healthy competetion. This is a cost issue, and the cost issue needs to to be addressd. I did like the idea though of allowing for small business and individuals to pool together or create co-ops to buy healthcare as long as it's privately run.

his whole plan is one you would like since the private sector insurers are the key, it seems?

not me though, i'd rather see the insurance companies, out of the picture....

 

[Oddball]

Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?

Granted, the older you get, the more sickly one gets in general, but accidents to those between 20-30 are not that rare, and cancer isn't either....i've known a number of 20-30 yr old women who had gotten breast cancer, and that's just my immediate circle of friends and coworkers, and 3 guys that were in devasting car accidents, and 2 that had diabitis, one that was epileptic...a cousin....all in their youth....

maybe you are much younger than me and haven't seen as much as me to know any better, i'm not certain, but honestly, shit happens, when least expected...and it isn't as much of an exception as you may think, though perhaps it did appear to you that i meant that it happened all the time, i didn't....i was merely asking a question.

3 days in the hospital, depending the circumstances could be $25k to $125k.... 15 years ago, for a minor female surgery, i was in the hospital for 2.5 days and the bill was $25,000....today that would certainly be $60-70k....

i'm not shooting the idea down that ridding ourselves of insurance companies and paying for our own health care directly to those who provide it, isn't the way to go, or wouldn't reduce our costs, due to our individual involvement of knowing what things cost and rebeling against the costs if too high and losing the cost of the middleman we now pay....i just wouldn't know where to begin, or how to do it, where a huge donut whole of exceptions weren't present.

care

Sure they do...Happens all the time in ski country.

Yet, many states prevent their residents from shopping around out of state for bare-bones or cafeteria-style coverage, and force them to purchase full coverage policies that cover things like drug treatment, chiropractic, and port wine stain removal.

Once again, gubmint is meddling in the marketplace, and exacerbates the problem....Now, we're supposed to believe those dummies are going to make things better and less expensive??

Wanna buy a bridge??

 

[Navy1960]

Noooooooooooo not you Care, I'm teasing you I realize your not a fan of the insurance companies it's fine. . Seriously though on the other matter, you really should if your having that much difficulty with one, as someone suggested a nice civil suit might get their attention. I was under the impression that Maine has some sort of state sponsored Insurance program though? I could be wrong there because the last time I was there was many years ago and was a small stop-over.

 

[Care4all]

Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?

Granted, the older you get, the more sickly one gets in general, but accidents to those between 20-30 are not that rare, and cancer isn't either....i've known a number of 20-30 yr old women who had gotten breast cancer, and that's just my immediate circle of friends and coworkers, and 3 guys that were in devasting car accidents, and 2 that had diabitis, one that was epileptic...a cousin....all in their youth....

maybe you are much younger than me and haven't seen as much as me to know any better, i'm not certain, but honestly, shit happens, when least expected...and it isn't as much of an exception as you may think, though perhaps it did appear to you that i meant that it happened all the time, i didn't....i was merely asking a question.

3 days in the hospital, depending the circumstances could be $25k to $125k.... 15 years ago, for a minor female surgery, i was in the hospital for 2.5 days and the bill was $25,000....today that would certainly be $60-70k....

i'm not shooting the idea down that ridding ourselves of insurance companies and paying for our own health care directly to those who provide it, isn't the way to go, or wouldn't reduce our costs, due to our individual involvement of knowing what things cost and rebeling against the costs if too high and losing the cost of the middleman we now pay....i just wouldn't know where to begin, or how to do it, where a huge donut whole of exceptions weren't present.

care

Sure they do...Happens all the time in ski country.

Yet, many states prevent their residents from shopping around out of state for bare-bones or cafeteria-style coverage, and force them to purchase full coverage policies that cover things like drug treatment, chiropractic, and port wine stain removal.

Once again, gubmint is meddling in the marketplace, and exacerbates the problem....Now, we're supposed to believe those dummies are going to make things better and less expensive??

Wanna buy a bridge??

those dummies are the ones that have to address the problem with the lack of competition in insurance companies licensed in each state...i agree this is part of the problem, but i think the states should address this themselves, i hate to see the fed usurping the States...

 

[Oddball]

those dummies are the ones that have to address the problem with the lack of competition in insurance companies licensed in each state...i agree this is part of the problem, but i think the states should address this themselves, i hate to see the fed usurping the States...

First of all, how does creating yet another massive bureaucracy and levying zillions in new taxes make that already bad situation any better??

Secondly, there would be no usurpation of the states by invoking the interstate commerce clause. In fact, this might be the first instance in decades where it was properly applied and enforced.

 

[Care4all]

Noooooooooooo not you Care, I'm teasing you I realize your not a fan of the insurance companies it's fine. . Seriously though on the other matter, you really should if your having that much difficulty with one, as someone suggested a nice civil suit might get their attention. I was under the impression that Maine has some sort of state sponsored Insurance program though? I could be wrong there because the last time I was there was many years ago and was a small stop-over.

what state agency would even handle something like this....?

maine has insurance, individuals can buy, if their employer does not have it. They would buy in to a private plan, offered by 3 different insurance companies, i believe...in the form of a group plan at group rates which are lower.

IT is means tested, where the poorest get some assistance to pay for that plan...

the means testing is unrealistic, most people still can't afford it and Maine is still right up there with the states who have the least amount of citizens with health coverage.

 

[Care4all]

we do need more doctors and nurses and hospitals to be more competitive, and to handle the boomer implosion!

maybe the ama needs to lower their standards or reduce the cost of schooling for docs so more with smarts could enter in to the field?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Those are good questions....i don't know the answers to....without alot of statistics in front of me to analyze.

I am not certain those types of caps could really be determined because each case would be different...loss of ability to have sex the rest of their lives, for a 20 year old male or a 20 year old female would be different than losing the ability to have sex for a 65 year old man injured or a 65 year old woman injured, ya know? I mean the younguns lost ability to bear offspring...

I just don't think it should be done...and from all that i have seen, where the juries awarded too much, the system has corrected such, on appeals....

We have test models, in the states that did institute caps in order to reduce health care costs and it HAS NOT DONE SO....

if this truly is the case, then why allow our federal government to get involved at all?

care

Of course, caps could be determined. Consider that by your values, the loss of the ability to have sex has a much greater value to the younger man than to the older man, but are you just imposing your values or do you have reason to believe so? Suppose the younger man had a relatively weak sex drive and anxiety issues associated with sex that greatly diminished his enjoyment and that he had other issues that made it unlikely he ever would have become a parent or would want to be; and suppose the older man seeing his powers diminished found each found each sexual experience especially precious and each a reminder of his youth, and that not being about to have sex now made him feel cut off from much of his earlier life. If you were sitting on both juries, you would have awarded the younger man too much and the older man too little for the actual pain and suffering they were experiencing.

Surely, Congress or a state legislature could devise a formula that would base the award on age and the ability to produce an offspring and deliver judgments just as unjust as you would have.

Healthcare costs are going to continue to increase no matter what we do because our population is aging and because newer technologies and medications to extend life and function are nearly always very expensive. Health insurance will either go down or go up more slowly if awards are capped, but this will happen slowly over time because premiums are determined largely on the basis of a moving average of past cost experiences and it will take time before the lower costs of litigation significantly effect that average.

70 years without it for one, and 20 years without it for the other, with viagra.

and then you could have the Nun losing the ability to have sex or a eunich's loss of ability to have sex where it might not be that detrimental....

i don't like it that our government would determine this and for whom? we the people, or for their insurance buddies funding their campaigns and reelection? Smells corrupt, and will be corrupt and lesser penalties will probably be put in for key negligences, by the people whose pockets are being lined with gold....from the people or corporations or companies who would benefit most....

you are way more trusting of our government than i would have ever thought!???

care

In fact, if the government did impose caps, it would benefit you, not the insurance company because whatever the insurance company has to pay out today in settlement, it will get back tomorrow in the form of higher premiums, and that's true whether it's a private in insurance company or a government run insurance company.

Suppose I sue a doctor or hospital in your area and win a large settlement. Liability/malpractice premiums in your area or that specialty will be increased so the insurance company can recover its loss. The doctor/hospital will try to charge more to cover that increase, and if they can, that will cause your health insurance premium to go up. If they can't charge more, then they will reduce services, such as getting you out of the hospital or the doctor's office much faster than they otherwise would or by refusing to treat certain high risk cases to bring their insurance premiums down. One way or another you're going to pay for my big settlement.