Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance.

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance.

I consider myself to be a populist, but I don't object to those considering me to be a liberal proponent. I am not an advocate of socialized medicine, but there are some functions that government regulation and government or quasi-government entities perform in a superior manner.

I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from,

I'm a conservative who moved to a liberal city, and I was surprised to see my views change on several issues

“I vehemently opposed Obamacare, but now I want socialized medicine.

There is perhaps no other single issue I have had such a hard 180-degree turn on than healthcare. As a conservative, I vehemently opposed Obamacare and saw it as a slippery slope to a single-payer healthcare system - in other words, socialized medicine. But now I live in California and, self-employed. … the cheapest possible plan is about $500 per month - plus another $40 for dental coverage. That's $6,480 per year just for health insurance, which doesn't include copays ($75 per visit because the premium is so cheap) and medication. I know California isn't the most expensive in the country, … I have a new opinion about universal healthcare: Bring it on - the sooner the better. Thirty-year-old Dave would not even recognize me”.
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
619
Points
255
Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance.

I consider myself to be a populist, but I don't object to those considering me to be a liberal proponent. I am not an advocate of socialized medicine, but there are some functions that government regulation and government or quasi-government entities perform in a superior manner.

I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from,

I'm a conservative who moved to a liberal city, and I was surprised to see my views change on several issues

“I vehemently opposed Obamacare, but now I want socialized medicine.

There is perhaps no other single issue I have had such a hard 180-degree turn on than healthcare. As a conservative, I vehemently opposed Obamacare and saw it as a slippery slope to a single-payer healthcare system - in other words, socialized medicine. But now I live in California and, self-employed. … the cheapest possible plan is about $500 per month - plus another $40 for dental coverage. That's $6,480 per year just for health insurance, which doesn't include copays ($75 per visit because the premium is so cheap) and medication. I know California isn't the most expensive in the country, … I have a new opinion about universal healthcare: Bring it on - the sooner the better. Thirty-year-old Dave would not even recognize me”.
Does that include the 22 million illegals here?
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,745
Reaction score
2,056
Points
385
Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance.

I consider myself to be a populist, but I don't object to those considering me to be a liberal proponent. I am not an advocate of socialized medicine, but there are some functions that government regulation and government or quasi-government entities perform in a superior manner.

I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from,

I'm a conservative who moved to a liberal city, and I was surprised to see my views change on several issues

“I vehemently opposed Obamacare, but now I want socialized medicine.

There is perhaps no other single issue I have had such a hard 180-degree turn on than healthcare. As a conservative, I vehemently opposed Obamacare and saw it as a slippery slope to a single-payer healthcare system - in other words, socialized medicine. But now I live in California and, self-employed. … the cheapest possible plan is about $500 per month - plus another $40 for dental coverage. That's $6,480 per year just for health insurance, which doesn't include copays ($75 per visit because the premium is so cheap) and medication. I know California isn't the most expensive in the country, … I have a new opinion about universal healthcare: Bring it on - the sooner the better. Thirty-year-old Dave would not even recognize me”.
Every time someone brings up universal healthcare I always get a bit of a giggle from it.
They always claim they want it but never talk about the cost in money and lost quality of care.
First let's look at cost. 3.2 Trillion a year is a low estimate. That is the amount of federal tax returns in 2016. We run a deficit each and every year. So are you ok to increase your federal taxes to double what you now pay? Actually I myself believe that even that will probably be too low. That does not include state and local taxes.

Medical examiners can tell if someone had dental or medical work done in the U.S. or another country just by the type of hardware used.
A large number of countries are experiencing a need to ration healthcare now because so many of their population is retiring. England for instance has only certain hospitals that will accept seniors.
There would be no more private or semi-private rooms.
We could be like most countries which have universal healthcare, a six month or longer wait to see a specialist a year or longer wait for non life threatening surgery.

Given all that are you still that exited with universal healthcare?
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
619
Points
255
Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance.

I consider myself to be a populist, but I don't object to those considering me to be a liberal proponent. I am not an advocate of socialized medicine, but there are some functions that government regulation and government or quasi-government entities perform in a superior manner.

I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from,

I'm a conservative who moved to a liberal city, and I was surprised to see my views change on several issues

“I vehemently opposed Obamacare, but now I want socialized medicine.

There is perhaps no other single issue I have had such a hard 180-degree turn on than healthcare. As a conservative, I vehemently opposed Obamacare and saw it as a slippery slope to a single-payer healthcare system - in other words, socialized medicine. But now I live in California and, self-employed. … the cheapest possible plan is about $500 per month - plus another $40 for dental coverage. That's $6,480 per year just for health insurance, which doesn't include copays ($75 per visit because the premium is so cheap) and medication. I know California isn't the most expensive in the country, … I have a new opinion about universal healthcare: Bring it on - the sooner the better. Thirty-year-old Dave would not even recognize me”.
Every time someone brings up universal healthcare I always get a bit of a giggle from it.
They always claim they want it but never talk about the cost in money and lost quality of care.
First let's look at cost. 3.2 Trillion a year is a low estimate. That is the amount of federal tax returns in 2016. We run a deficit each and every year. So are you ok to increase your federal taxes to double what you now pay? Actually I myself believe that even that will probably be too low. That does not include state and local taxes.

Medical examiners can tell if someone had dental or medical work done in the U.S. or another country just by the type of hardware used.
A large number of countries are experiencing a need to ration healthcare now because so many of their population is retiring. England for instance has only certain hospitals that will accept seniors.
There would be no more private or semi-private rooms.
We could be like most countries which have universal healthcare, a six month or longer wait to see a specialist a year or longer wait for non life threatening surgery.

Given all that are you still that exited with universal healthcare?
I used to buy one size fits all clothing. Now, nothing fits. Same with universal health care.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Every time someone brings up universal healthcare I always get a bit of a giggle from it.
They always claim they want it but never talk about the cost in money and lost quality of care. ...
Maxdeath, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance is not comprehensive medical insurance but rather something that would be of value to our current and whatever will be our future policies regarding medical insurance and practices. Respectfully, Supposn
Affordable medical insurance for all?

“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.

I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide. ...
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
45,056
Reaction score
4,688
Points
1,860
I am pro enforcing the ACA with Bidens Plan.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,745
Reaction score
2,056
Points
385
Every time someone brings up universal healthcare I always get a bit of a giggle from it.
They always claim they want it but never talk about the cost in money and lost quality of care. ...
Maxdeath, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance is not comprehensive medical insurance but rather something that would be of value to our current and whatever will be our future policies regarding medical insurance and practices. Respectfully, Supposn
Affordable medical insurance for all?

“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.

I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide. ...
My question still remains. Are you willing to accept higher federal taxes or are you advoctating higher federal debt? How do you or others believe that hospitals will be affected?

Under universal healthcare numbers of hospitals and doctors will be forced to close.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,745
Reaction score
2,056
Points
385
I am pro enforcing the ACA with Bidens Plan.
You do realize that as insurance costs rise more people become uninsured? The number of uninsured has recently risen.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
61,662
Reaction score
16,554
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Every time someone brings up universal healthcare I always get a bit of a giggle from it.
They always claim they want it but never talk about the cost in money and lost quality of care. ...
Maxdeath, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance is not comprehensive medical insurance but rather something that would be of value to our current and whatever will be our future policies regarding medical insurance and practices. Respectfully, Supposn
Affordable medical insurance for all?

“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.

I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide. ...
The nose under the tent to a federal monopoly.

No.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Federal reinsurance of explicit medical preventative and screening procedures.
Discouraging insurers “annual deductibles” of medical insurance coverage.

Federal general funding will provide reinsurance for explicitly listed and described best medical preventative and screening procedures The description of the procedures specify for which patient's symptoms or conditions recommend applying these explicit procedures. The medical insurers that acceptance of this federal reinsurance, will be reimbursed at 50% of Medicare's allowable charge as their entire compensation for these procedures and they will pro-actively offer this coverage to their clients at no additional cost. Additionally, they will not enforce “deductible” exclusions,(e.g. annual deductible amounts) that are gaps of their client's amount of insurance coverage.

[The purpose of insurers fees per visit or insurance of less than full cost is to prevent over-usage of medical insurance. What then is the purpose of additional annual deductibles of coverage, other than to reduce medical insurers' cost and prices? Annual deductibles are particularly hinder lower rather than higher-income earners exercising their access to their insurance benefits.]

This federal reinsurance is provided equitably and at no cost to both government and non-governmental medical insurance plans. Too often, the consequences of persons not receiving such medical preventative and screening procedures are more individuals' and our nation's deaths, disabilities, suffering, and financial costs. The purpose of this reinsurance is to reduce medical insurance prices.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
My question still remains. Are you willing to accept higher federal taxes or are you advocating higher federal debt? How do you or others believe that hospitals will be affected?

Under universal healthcare numbers of hospitals and doctors will be forced to close.
Maxdeath, I'm proposing we accept higher federal taxes or debt if consequences are improved medical insurance at no greater cost to client's costs, and no net increase of costs to the aggregate taxpayers and medically insured persons and families of no greater than the median annual incomes. (the tax consequences upon those of greater than the median annual incomes would be of no proportionally substantial increase).

The proposals of federal reinsurance of explicit medical preventative and screening procedures and the discouraging insurers “annual deductibles” of medical insurance coverage, would be offered to both government and non-governmental medical insurance plans. they would reduce those plans costs and prices.
Higher medical costs increase medical insurers prices and reduce numbers of younger healthier insurance purchasers. This, in turn, increases per client costs and pricing of medical insurance.

These are not proposals for universal or otherwise comprehensive medical insurance. They are some extent of socialized medical insurance but are not socialized medicine to any extent.
The proposal would reduce medical insurance prices and better assure healthcare providers will be more promptly and fully-paid, thus bolstering their financial sustainability.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Federal subsidy of catastrophic medical expenditures.

Catastrophic medical expenditures are initially enacted by medical service and goods providers. In emergencies, those providers are legally required to medically stabilize the patient. Financial deficits due to legal and/or humane imperatives for providing medical treatments are destabilizing factors to medical services and goods providers if they cannot pass on those costs.

Due to the costs of collection and costs of uncollectable accounts (which are particularly the case for uninsured catastrophic medical costs), hospitals and clinics are impelled to increase their per-unit prices.
Some of those uninsured costs are paid by charities and our governments, (i.e. current and future federal, state, and local taxpayers), but that's usually after those deficits have induced price increases.

Federal catastrophic medical expenditures would significantly subsidize medical goods and service providers costs due to patients' catastrophic procedures and treatments. It would be applicable to U.S. legal resident patients regardless if they are or are not otherwise medically insured.

Reimbursement per individual patient would begin when the costs due to the patient's catastrophic medical costs reach or are nominated to reach an annual catastrophic cost amount threshold. (That cost amount threshold is annually pegged to a Consumer-Price index number). The reimbursement of the medical goods and services providers' direct costs on the patient's behalf are on a sliding scale. Provider's reimbursement begins at 10% of their annual costs on behalf of the patient, and continue to increase at a rate of an additional 1% per hundred dollars of incremental increases of the annual direct costs beyond the catastrophic cost amount threshold. The maximum federal catastrophic reimbursement per patient is 50% of annual direct costs on the patient's behalf.

It's expected that medical providers of uninsured patients would mutually agree to designate a patient's primary medical financial manager for consolidating and administrating the transfer of reimbursement between the federal government and themselves. If an uninsured patient has multi medical providers, a medical provider choosing to perform their own catastrophic cost coordination with federal administrators would likely be reducing their own and other providers' entitled compensation.

The purpose of federal government subsidy of direct catastrophic medical costs is to reduce medical goods, services, and insurers net costs, thus their passed on prices. Higher medical costs increase medical insurers prices and reduce numbers of younger healthier insurance purchasers. This, in turn, increases insurers' per client costs and pricing of all (government and non-governmental) medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,613
Reaction score
3,091
Points
1,130
Federal subsidy of catastrophic medical expenditures.

Catastrophic medical expenditures are initially enacted by medical service and goods providers. In emergencies, those providers are legally required to medically stabilize the patient. Financial deficits due to legal and/or humane imperatives for providing medical treatments are destabilizing factors to medical services and goods providers if they cannot pass on those costs.

Due to the costs of collection and costs of uncollectable accounts (which are particularly the case for uninsured catastrophic medical costs), hospitals and clinics are impelled to increase their per-unit prices.
Some of those uninsured costs are paid by charities and our governments, (i.e. current and future federal, state, and local taxpayers), but that's usually after those deficits have induced price increases.

Federal catastrophic medical expenditures would significantly subsidize medical goods and service providers costs due to patients' catastrophic procedures and treatments. It would be applicable to U.S. legal resident patients regardless if they are or are not otherwise medically insured.

Reimbursement per individual patient would begin when the costs due to the patient's catastrophic medical costs reach or are nominated to reach an annual catastrophic cost amount threshold. (That cost amount threshold is annually pegged to a Consumer-Price index number). The reimbursement of the medical goods and services providers' direct costs on the patient's behalf are on a sliding scale. Provider's reimbursement begins at 10% of their annual costs on behalf of the patient, and continue to increase at a rate of an additional 1% per hundred dollars of incremental increases of the annual direct costs beyond the catastrophic cost amount threshold. The maximum federal catastrophic reimbursement per patient is 50% of annual direct costs on the patient's behalf.

It's expected that medical providers of uninsured patients would mutually agree to designate a patient's primary medical financial manager for consolidating and administrating the transfer of reimbursement between the federal government and themselves. If an uninsured patient has multi medical providers, a medical provider choosing to perform their own catastrophic cost coordination with federal administrators would likely be reducing their own and other providers' entitled compensation.

The purpose of federal government subsidy of direct catastrophic medical costs is to reduce medical goods, services, and insurers net costs, thus their passed on prices. Higher medical costs increase medical insurers prices and reduce numbers of younger healthier insurance purchasers. This, in turn, increases insurers' per client costs and pricing of all (government and non-governmental) medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Don't want to rely on government for health care. Sorry. If you want to send them your money, they can set something up like this for you, and those who agree with you. There's no reason to force the rest of us to play along.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
77
Points
85
Don't want to rely on government for health care. Sorry. If you want to send them your money, they can set something up like this for you, and those who agree with you. There's no reason to force the rest of us to play along.
DBlack, if you’re paying for any substantial portion of your medical insurance and copayments, and you’re paying income taxes, this proposal would be of net reduction of your net out-of-pocket expenses unless your taxable income’s greater than that of the average income taxpayer.

(Unlike the median income taxpayer’s income, less than 20% of USA income taxpayers earn more than the average income taxpayer’s annual income). There now exists some form of federal subsidy or price reducing regulation within EVERY medical insurance plan that qualified for the Affordable Care Act. If you’re medically insured, whoever is paying for your insurance is somewhat relying on the federal government to reduce their costs.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,613
Reaction score
3,091
Points
1,130
Don't want to rely on government for health care. Sorry. If you want to send them your money, they can set something up like this for you, and those who agree with you. There's no reason to force the rest of us to play along.
DBlack, if you’re paying for any substantial portion of your medical insurance and copayments, and you’re paying income taxes, this proposal would be of net reduction of your net out-of-pocket expenses unless your taxable income’s greater than that of the average income taxpayer.
I'm sure it would. Lot's of proposed welfare state programs would benefit me personally, but the would leave our children with a dangerously powerful government. Preventing that is more important to me than saving a few dollars via mandated efficiency.

(Unlike the median income taxpayer’s income, less than 20% of USA income taxpayers earn more than the average income taxpayer’s annual income).
??? Have you been toking up with danielpalos?

There now exists some form of federal subsidy or price reducing regulation within EVERY medical insurance plan that qualified for the Affordable Care Act. If you’re medically insured, whoever is paying for your insurance is somewhat relying on the federal government to reduce their costs.
Yes, and that needs to be corrected.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top