YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 And you think this is going to improve with nationalized healthcare? Guess what, you're the living embodiment of things to come for everyone. With or without National healthcare... I tend to agree... but then maybe we can't get rid of these middle men insurance leeches and find away to take of people's health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 ?? I love the appointment wait time scare argument... it doesn't happen in Canada any more than it does here and how is that any different than now? I have to wait often times a month for a specialist for my son and our insurance doesn't cover the specialist best able to treat him.... How cool would it be if your options for buying health care for your family weren't limited only to the options available in your state? Why, if more people could compete for your business, maybe you'd find yourself in a better position to increase your coverage while lowering your cost. Nah. Never mind. It's a better idea to let the government run it for you. Then you'll definitely get what you deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 With or without National healthcare... I tend to agree... but then maybe we can't get rid of these middle men insurance leeches and find away to take of people's health. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain insurance to you. They are middlemen because they take the money from the healthy (premium payers) and pay the sick. If you get rid of the insurers, everyone will be left to their own devices to fund healthcare. Do you think you'd be in a better place without insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Also, over 85% of the hospitals in this country are not-for-profit, so they are required to treat anyone regardless of health insurance, illegal or not. And they do. So yet another bull **** argument on your part. Basic Emergency room care is given to almost anyone insured or not. The real reason for health care reform (Not necessarily in the exact form Obama wants) is because there are 3 tiers of health coverage in this country. The top tier has the best coverage because of their job or wealth either way they get the coverage they need. The bottom tier while they might not have coverage due to money issues or being illegal aliens but they can take advantage of government programs or charity care like you mentioned so while they might not get quality care they find a way to get basic care. But there is a second tier that needs help. Its honest hard working Americans that have coverage but get dropped because of pre-existing conditions or because they are small businesses they can't get reasonable rates for their employees or families. There also exists a problem where the average family keeps having their rates go up and up making it more unaffordable or makes it decline their quality of life because they keep spending more and more on health coverage (faster than the rate of inflation). So its a terrible situation for those who aren't free loaders or moochers. Its about regulating insurance and making more competition for consumers. Its about making sure honest people who have insurance don't loose their coverage because they got sick. There is a real need to reform health care anyone who doesn't see it (Even if you want a more conservative approach there still needs to be something done) is ignoring a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 And VABills is one of the tallest midgets I know... And you're one of the most stupid smart guys I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Despite the blah, blah, blah nonsensical line, the low penalties offered is a good argument and should be debated. Any sense of where that is right now in the debate and what levels do you think would make sense. Well according to Max Bogus, a public option isn't where he wants to go, but instead with co-ops. I was talking about the public option, which many Democrats say needs to happen. I don't know much about medical co-ops, but co-ops in business usually end-up costing consumers more money. And the penalty for not providing health care in Bogus' plan ostensibly will go towards expanding Medicaid, versus the public option. What makes more sense is health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans. When I priced one out last year and compared it to my regular coverage, it came out less per year, AND the money from the HSA which I didn't use came back to me, tax-deferred, and could be used as a retirement vehicle. But the Dems want to kill those as well. Other questions you need to ask is, why no real attempt at tort reform? Although the answer is obvious there. Another is, why are Dems exempting members of Congress from health care reform, if it's so great for everyone else? I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 There's already more than enough money in the system for health care but let's keep pretending there isn't because it's more convenient than addressing the actual problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 How cool would it be if your options for buying health care for your family weren't limited only to the options available in your state? Why, if more people could compete for your business, maybe you'd find yourself in a better position to increase your coverage while lowering your cost. Nah. Never mind. It's a better idea to let the government run it for you. Then you'll definitely get what you deserve. Yeh, except then we would have even more consolidation in the insurance and healthcare industry because no one enforces anti-trust and in quick order our choices would decrease dramatically and prices would rise even faster... though for national health insurance advocates it might not be a bad idea, because then the argument would really turn in their favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Well according to Max Bogus, a public option isn't where he wants to go, but instead with co-ops. I was talking about the public option, which many Democrats say needs to happen. I don't know much about medical co-ops, but co-ops in business usually end-up costing consumers more money. And the penalty for not providing health care in Bogus' plan ostensibly will go towards expanding Medicaid, versus the public option. What makes more sense is health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans. When I priced one out last year and compared it to my regular coverage, it came out less per year, AND the money from the HSA which I didn't use came back to me, tax-deferred, and could be used as a retirement vehicle. But the Dems want to kill those as well. Other questions you need to ask is, why no real attempt at tort reform? Although the answer is obvious there. Another is, why are Dems exempting members of Congress from health care reform, if it's so great for everyone else? I wonder. I know, I know you think that this idea is the cure all. I am not sold, you can do it right now, though notice neither the insurance cos nor doctors and anyone else is really promoting the idea. Probably because they don't make enough money off the deal. The other problem with it is that you have a hard time rolling over the money from year to year and it assumes that you make enough in a given year to cover your medical expenses this way... another words there is a short term build up issue and it won't work for those who have chronic expensive medical issues. I still like it to remain as an option though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 There's already more than enough money in the system for health care but let's keep pretending there isn't because it's more convenient than addressing the actual problems. Agreed, but as soon as anyone starts saying we should cut reimbursement fees and costs the doctors and insurance cos go bananas a send out their high prices lobbyists to combat the political and pr threat till it is pummeled into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Agreed, but as soon as anyone starts saying we should cut reimbursement fees and costs the doctors and insurance cos go bananas a send out their high prices lobbyists to combat the political and pr threat till it is pummeled into the ground. How's about tort reform first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 How's about tort reform first? How's about both of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 How's about both of them? Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I know, I know you think that this idea is the cure all. I am not sold, you can do it right now, though notice neither the insurance cos nor doctors and anyone else is really promoting the idea. Probably because they don't make enough money off the deal. The other problem with it is that you have a hard time rolling over the money from year to year and it assumes that you make enough in a given year to cover your medical expenses this way... another words there is a short term build up issue and it won't work for those who have chronic expensive medical issues. I still like it to remain as an option though. There is no "cure all." HSA's and HDHP's are IMHO the best option. It's like a debit card (HSA which people will ideally try to keep as large as possible) with a safety net (HP kicks-in after HSA depleted). Current plans are like buying on credit, with no real care by the consumer to spend wisely. And don't get me wrong, insurance companies need reform as well. Dropping people who pay their premiums for getting sick is reprehensible. And while the pre-existing condition thing seems odious, it is there to prevent people from not buying coverage when they're healthy and only getting it when they're sick. As was explained, that's not how (any) insurance works. Maybe there should be a 1-year wait for those with pre-existing conditions or auditing someone's finances to determine if they had the ability to pay previously and just didn't. I don't know and there are no simple answers, but the Dems' proposals are surely not. Not when tort reform is nowhere to be found, and personal responsibility isn't stressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 45,000 is less than die on average from the flu And that's not counting Swine Flu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 HAHAHAHAHA This is actually funny. What an absolute load of crap this "study" is. I hope Obama recites it to all 5 of his dates this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 45,000 is less than die on average from the flu And that's not counting Swine Flu And a half million people die from smoking related illness, let's ban smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 The reason is too many doctors spend a lot of time at the golf course and on private yachts etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the one's that but most Doctor's live in the top 1% income bracket and until they drop down to say the top 25% bracket, I am not going to worry about it. We are all paying for their education... Until that changes, we will continue to pay for their education. That is why prices are so outrageous. Everybody wants a a piece of the pie and when it is all said and done, want to do as little as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 We are all paying for their education... Until that changes, we will continue to pay for their education. That is why prices are so outrageous. Everybody wants a a piece of the pie and when it is all said and done, want to do as little as possible. This is one of the most ridiculous and ignorant things I've read. When you buy consumer products, whose education are you paying for? When you pay $200 for a house call for a plumber and then $75/hour, whose education are you paying for? When you buy concert or sporting event tickets, whose education are you paying for? When you buy a house, whose education are you paying for? What you're paying for is overhead, expertise, insurance waste (and the education of their execs, if you will), and malpractice/defensive medicine. Not to mention your bad health habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 This is one of the most ridiculous and ignorant things I've read. When you buy consumer products, whose education are you paying for? When you pay $200 for a house call for a plumber and then $75/hour, whose education are you paying for? When you buy concert or sporting event tickets, whose education are you paying for? When you buy a house, whose education are you paying for? What you're paying for is overhead, expertise, insurance waste (and the education of their execs, if you will), and malpractice/defensive medicine. Not to mention your bad health habits. Whether you know it or not, you made his point... have you ever studied econ? In this case, one could argue that the AMA limits the amount of Doctors in the field, promotes specialists, raising demand for their services and works with the education establishment to keep ed costs high. One of those, supply demand deals without any anti-trust enforcement. There is still a group out there that believe this is all to keep us in demand for these high priced services, paid both out of pocket and from the public trough, especially through research grants and does little to actually cure us. That is an extreme view IMO, but I do think that the way our system is set up a certain amount of that de facto happens, planned or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts