Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 97
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    LBJ and Medicare

    There are other references but this was the first I came to. It's actually an interesting and not particularly one-sided article....even though it did come from a health policy wonk at Harvard Med School.
    Nice Op-Ed piece. Thanks for that. I was wondering if you'd ever seen the movie, "The Lives of Others"? Its been out about 5 years or so.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    nevermind the Republicans. The majority of the american people will call it a great victory if it doesn't pass. Only hardcore socialists are pulling for it at this point.
    Actually there's very little about the bill that's socialist. If anything it's fascist. Requiring people to buy insurance from private insurance companies with no regulation on their profits is insane.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Actually there's very little about the bill that's socialist. If anything it's fascist. Requiring people to buy insurance from private insurance companies with no regulation on their profits is insane.
    Profit is insane? Why do you feel a need to regulate profits? How much profit is ok?

    You make profit sound.... evil. It's what gets ultimately fed back into our economy.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Profit is insane? Why do you feel a need to regulate profits? How much profit is ok?

    You make profit sound.... evil. It's what gets ultimately fed back into our economy.
    Come on. We've been over this ad nauseam. You're generalizing my statement regarding health insurance profits to all other business and that's not what I said.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Profit is insane? Why do you feel a need to regulate profits? How much profit is ok?

    You make profit sound.... evil. It's what gets ultimately fed back into our economy.
    Profits, of course, aren't evil. When companies turn a greater profit by denying coverage and letting our citizens die, it IS evil.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    That sounds good except...the doctor is only 15% of healthcare costs. Can the hospital deduct the amount it charges when an uninsured patient is admitted? How about Ct Scans and medicines--who deducts those costs? Medicines are often chronic--that means forever. Does each patient go back to the doc to get the meds? What about medical instrumentation like fake heart valves and eye lenses?

    And how much can a doc deduct? One doc charges $1000 and another charges $2000--for the same thing. Can the first doc suddenly charge $2000 just to get the larger deduction?

    I like the idea of the government buying in bulk, as it already does with the Vets Administration, allowing for the cheapest drugs in America. Are you suggesting that the Government be allowed to negotiate for drug prices? My, how progressive of you!

    Ahh, the devil is in the details....

    By the way, we are at about 16% uninsured, not 10% (and please spare me the talk about how they are all "choosing" to be uninsured and everyone's an undocumented immigrant...)
    First--yes if you use that 47 Million it is closer to 16%. The actual number is closer to 12 Million, but I was using 30 Million as the compromise number--to arrive at about 10%.

    Call me "progressive" as it is commonly used again, and I will slap your face with a glove virtually. If the government is buying something, they have every right to negotiate a price with whoever they are buying from. That's a FREE MARKET idea--as long as the government is just one buyer amongst others, not the ONLY buyer.

    Of course the devil is in the details. This is a concept, not a complete plan. In regards to the other costs...well, that is a valid point, and I'd say that the same holds true--that these costs would be fully tax deductible.

    As far as what they charge...well, the government already engages in price fixing for medicare reimbursement, so why not use that same cost schedule (or even the +% thing--perhaps a large percentage--since it is a deduction).

    Obviously this isn't the Free market solution I'd ideally choose, but rather an honest attempt to come up with an IDEA for a solution that will actually work--today, not some unsustainable monster that will cost trillions and probably do little to expand actual care.

    If we had politicians willing to actually look for solutions, and explore any possibility instead of charging along their ideological lines, we might have a chance at actual reform. As of now, I don't think we do.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Actually there's very little about the bill that's socialist. If anything it's fascist. Requiring people to buy insurance from private insurance companies with no regulation on their profits is insane.
    Its funny how leftists, like Howard Dean are perfectly willing to require people to buy into GOVERNMENT insurance. I hear a lot of chest-beating about these horrible profits, but it is apparently ok if you just waste that money (which medicare does--according to President Obama--to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars).

    So, these positions are contradictory, and based in ideology, not practical minded solutions to problems. This is exactly why there is no hope for any real reform here.

    Democrats who are running this show, are completely satisfied with unsustainable, wasteful "solutions" as long as it benefits what they prefer. Totally hypocritical position, but that's government for you.

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Profits, of course, aren't evil. When companies turn a greater profit by denying coverage and letting our citizens die, it IS evil.
    What about when Medicare denies coverage? What would you call that? Oh, that's right--GOVERNMENT can commit whatever "evil" it wants, but if it is a corporation...well, then that's a problem.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes, and the republicans will call it a great victory if it doesn't pass.
    So will I, because it is a sham. I'm not going to cheer a political mess, because they PROMISE this time it will really fix things. I want actual fixes that are the primary concern, not an excuse to expand government.

    We've wasted months on this nonsense, that even if passed won't help people for YEARS (conveniently after the next Presidential Election). Many actual reforms could be in place TODAY if not for the political motivations of those running this show. I don't give a crap what party it is--its all Government vs the People--no matter who is in power, and we ALWAYS lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You are old enough to know that before Medicare, only half of the elderly even had health insurance.
    SNIP
    Nope, I think we would be much worse off without government medical programs, the same we will be much worse off if health care reform doesn't pass.
    Actually, considering Medicare is poised for financial insolvency, already (and this bill does not help that), I can hardly call it a success. Did it help some people--surely, but it also harmed many others, because it is a major contributor to the rising costs we see now. Look at the costs FOLLOWING medicare and tell me that government intervention hasn't led us into skyrocketing costs.

    Medicare--heavily subsidized by a pool of payers much larger than the Recipients is FAILING financially. Do you not realize that when that pool of beneficiaries expands it will only accelerate that financial failure.

    That's the whole (now forgotten) point isn't it--to control costs? I know you never cited that, but that's what these lying politicians promised, and why the American people do not support this--because they know it isn't going to work.

    We can't keep repeating the same problems and hope that somehow THIS time, things will work out. Government intervention, along with the Insurance industry have created an unsustainable situation, and driving deeper into it won't change that.

    KAM
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Come on. We've been over this ad nauseam. You're generalizing my statement regarding health insurance profits to all other business and that's not what I said.
    Why are profits in health insurance any different than any other business? I'd agree that they need regulation, if they were out of control, but they aren't. The focus needs to be on the costs in healthcare, not what is already a relatively moderate profit margin.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So will I, because it is a sham. I'm not going to cheer a political mess, because they PROMISE this time it will really fix things. I want actual fixes that are the primary concern, not an excuse to expand government.

    We've wasted months on this nonsense, that even if passed won't help people for YEARS (conveniently after the next Presidential Election). Many actual reforms could be in place TODAY if not for the political motivations of those running this show. I don't give a crap what party it is--its all Government vs the People--no matter who is in power, and we ALWAYS lose.



    Actually, considering Medicare is poised for financial insolvency, already (and this bill does not help that), I can hardly call it a success. Did it help some people--surely, but it also harmed many others, because it is a major contributor to the rising costs we see now. Look at the costs FOLLOWING medicare and tell me that government intervention hasn't led us into skyrocketing costs.

    Medicare--heavily subsidized by a pool of payers much larger than the Recipients is FAILING financially. Do you not realize that when that pool of beneficiaries expands it will only accelerate that financial failure.

    That's the whole (now forgotten) point isn't it--to control costs? I know you never cited that, but that's what these lying politicians promised, and why the American people do not support this--because they know it isn't going to work.

    We can't keep repeating the same problems and hope that somehow THIS time, things will work out. Government intervention, along with the Insurance industry have created an unsustainable situation, and driving deeper into it won't change that.

    KAM
    You can't have it both ways. If you intend to expand Medicare, you have to provide more money to do that. If you want to expand Medicare as I would like, to everyone, provide a choice between private and Medicare, and do away with the insurance premiums of those that choose Medicare (and the excessive overhead costs and the profit that Micael denies exists), and raise taxes accordingly, I'm pretty sure that Medicare would not only remain solvent, but flourish. BTW....you'd also reduce the employer contribution for all those that chose the Medicare option, allowing businesses to keep more of their earned money. Seems to work for the Japanese auto industry.

    No, you can't leave things like they are, expand Medicare, and expect it to be successful. And I'm not saying that, either.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You can't have it both ways. If you intend to expand Medicare, you have to provide more money to do that.
    Well, the politicians keep on trying to sell the idea that this will save money.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you want to expand Medicare as I would like, to everyone, provide a choice between private and Medicare, and do away with the insurance premiums of those that choose Medicare (and the excessive overhead costs and the profit that Micael denies exists), and raise taxes accordingly, I'm pretty sure that Medicare would not only remain solvent, but flourish. BTW....you'd also reduce the employer contribution for all those that chose the Medicare option, allowing businesses to keep more of their earned money. Seems to work for the Japanese auto industry.
    Well, undoubtedly anything could work with enough tax money to back it up...ignoring that high taxes have other very detrimental effects.
    Correct me if I'm wrong--is the difference you see just coming from "excessive overhead" in the private industry?

    I'm not sure we can even properly quantify the analog in government--inefficiency, waste, and fraud, because they don't follow accounting rules like others are legally obligated to do. We are TOLD by the politicians who run these programs that there are hundreds of billions in waste, and I believe that, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks that would go away.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No, you can't leave things like they are, expand Medicare, and expect it to be successful. And I'm not saying that, either.
    True--to your credit you are much more up front about what you want and that it will cost a lot. Unfortunately, our politicians are not being nearly as honest.

    KAM
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Why are profits in health insurance any different than any other business? I'd agree that they need regulation, if they were out of control, but they aren't. The focus needs to be on the costs in healthcare, not what is already a relatively moderate profit margin.
    Well gee Micael. I don't know. Maybe a little thing called ethics?


    I know this may be a foreign idea to you but as far as the rest of the industrialized world is concerned, it's the status quo. In fact we're the only industrialized nation that does not regulate health insurance industry profits.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, the politicians keep on trying to sell the idea that this will save money.




    Well, undoubtedly anything could work with enough tax money to back it up...ignoring that high taxes have other very detrimental effects.
    Correct me if I'm wrong--is the difference you see just coming from "excessive overhead" in the private industry?



    KAM
    When combined with other cost controls, I think it will save money....but what anybody thinks will not ever be the truth. And it's not only the government that tends to underestimate the cost of programs. Ask Boeing about their new jet. Whatever the cost is, given appropriate controls (which I believe are possible), it is worth it.

    High taxes have detrimental effects when they aren't offset by positives. If you asked me whether I thought the enormous expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth the lives lost and the possible increased security it has provided, I would have argued that we could have taken care of that security with a whole lot less money and lives lost, but that's my opinion. I don't know much about those things, but that's just my guess. That money could have provided for our own citizens plenty of money to provide high-quality health care for many years. That seems a more appropriate expenditure, but that's just me. I don't mind at all my taxes going to improve the health of the country; I'm not that delighted about it going to win the hearts and minds of goatherders in Afghanistan, or to fatten the Haliburton bottom line. Again, that's just me. Cost/beneift.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Well gee Micael. I don't know. Maybe a little thing called ethics?


    I know this may be a foreign idea to you but as far as the rest of the industrialized world is concerned, it's the status quo. In fact we're the only industrialized nation that does not regulate health insurance industry profits.
    Read what he posted again Dathomas, we don't need regulations in the health insurance industry. If we need regulations on anything its on the price of the healthcare.

    Here is an example; an MRI here in the states can cost anywhere from 1500-2000+. Now how about we go on over to Japan how much does that same MRI cost? $160.

    You see the problem is not with the insurance industry. They are doing what it takes to stay alive. On top of all the scammers they get.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Well gee Micael. I don't know. Maybe a little thing called ethics?


    I know this may be a foreign idea to you but as far as the rest of the industrialized world is concerned, it's the status quo. In fact we're the only industrialized nation that does not regulate health insurance industry profits.
    So, by that logic the government should also be able to regulate the food industry too--because they make lots of profit.

    Of course the fallacy here is that the government somehow has a superior ethical footing upon which to regulate anyone, and that is ias big a laugh as I've ever heard.

    The thing I simply do not understand with you big government advocates is how you can have so much trust in government--willing to place so much of your lives in their hands, while being so terrified of anyone who dares make profit.

    Profit is the root of all evil huh? Of course, that ignores that this horrible profit and the pursuit of profit is what fuels ALL the government programs that are funded by taxes that these horrible profit-making entities and individuals make.

    And the really laughable part of this is that you have a CHOICE what profit-seeking company you deal with. We have a (somewhat) free economy, where you can choose to NOT deal with companies you dislike (for whatever reason). The government gives us no such choice, and as is being demonstrated now--the government "by the people" notion is all but gone--with our government happily pursuing things that the people clearly are against--by wide margins (politically speaking).

    Another thing--I really sick to death of people who scoff at the notion of the United States being a great country while touting how great every other nation is. It is an outrage to suggest that the United States is great, but its fine to tout every second world, socialist nation in the world as models of greatness. You like them, great--go there. I'm not saying you MUST leave the country I like--I just am pointing out that you have options. You love social democracies--you've got plenty to choose from. Why must you insist on destroying one of the only Liberty-Republics (as sad a state as we are in) left in the world.

    And that's really it isn't it. This is all about you FORCING what you want on me. Note--the opposite is not true. I'm not asking anyone for anything--YOU advocates of massive government are demanding that I participate in what you want. Well, guess what--the US Constitution isn't designed for that--its designed to keep people like you from using the Government as a tool of control. Of course, the Constitution is largely treated as an outdated curiosity by the left, so there is no wonder here.

    If you are going to tax me--fine, take what I earn and make it harder for me to provide for MY family, but stop with this nanny state garbage. I don't want the government involved in my healthcare. Do I not have a right to my own life without their intrusion into it? Do I not have the right to choose what is best for me and my own family?

    No Corporation has ever demanded that I participate in ANYTHING they come up with. No Corporation has the right to kick in my door and take what I've got if I don't wish to participate. Government does, and yet you merrily keep handing them more and more of not your power, but mine as well--against my will.

    KAM
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    When combined with other cost controls, I think it will save money....but what anybody thinks will not ever be the truth. And it's not only the government that tends to underestimate the cost of programs. Ask Boeing about their new jet. Whatever the cost is, given appropriate controls (which I believe are possible), it is worth it.
    That's true, many things run over-budget. The difference, companies like Boeing are subject to direct punishment (their bottom line) when they fail in these areas and the Government has a record of NOT being responsible at all--they simply tax us more, or print more money. Government doesn't follow all the rules they impose on everyone else--to our detriment.

    Boeing has to compete with other Airplane companies--the government doesn't compete with anyone, and they are effectively unaccountable.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    High taxes have detrimental effects when they aren't offset by positives. If you asked me whether I thought the enormous expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth the lives lost and the possible increased security it has provided, I would have argued that we could have taken care of that security with a whole lot less money and lives lost, but that's my opinion. I don't know much about those things, but that's just my guess. That money could have provided for our own citizens plenty of money to provide high-quality health care for many years. That seems a more appropriate expenditure, but that's just me. I don't mind at all my taxes going to improve the health of the country; I'm not that delighted about it going to win the hearts and minds of goatherders in Afghanistan, or to fatten the Haliburton bottom line. Again, that's just me. Cost/beneift.
    Look at how much wealth was destroyed by ONE terrorist act, and I think that cost/benefit won't look so good.

    KAM
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Of course the fallacy here is that the government somehow has a superior ethical footing upon which to regulate anyone, and that is ias big a laugh as I've ever heard.

    The thing I simply do not understand with you big government advocates is how you can have so much trust in government--willing to place so much of your lives in their hands, while being so terrified of anyone who dares make profit.

    And that's really it isn't it. This is all about you FORCING what you want on me. Note--the opposite is not true. I'm not asking anyone for anything--YOU advocates of massive government are demanding that I participate in what you want. Well, guess what--the US Constitution isn't designed for that--its designed to keep people like you from using the Government as a tool of control. Of course, the Constitution is largely treated as an outdated curiosity by the left, so there is no wonder here.

    If you are going to tax me--fine, take what I earn and make it harder for me to provide for MY family, but stop with this nanny state garbage. I don't want the government involved in my healthcare. Do I not have a right to my own life without their intrusion into it? Do I not have the right to choose what is best for me and my own family?

    No Corporation has ever demanded that I participate in ANYTHING they come up with. No Corporation has the right to kick in my door and take what I've got if I don't wish to participate. Government does, and yet you merrily keep handing them more and more of not your power, but mine as well--against my will.

    KAM
    Really. Sometimes your love affair with for-profit large corporations gets uncomfortable.

    Yes, I firmly believe that Medicare has more of a "superior ethical footing" in the health care of their beneficiaries than a for-profit entity like Humana...or especially a for-profit entity like HCA. Their responsibility, their PRIMARY responsibility, is to their stockholders, and they act accordingly, canceling policies retrospectively at will based on absurd requirements (not checking acne on the initial enrollment form for example after cancer is diagnosed). I have never seen Medicare do anything like that....and I've seen a number of for-profits do exactly that.

    You talk large...but just think about how you would respond if your significant other became horrible ill and their insurance was canceled? Or if you are so determined to go without it, will you promise not to seek care when you need it? Promise? Or will you come begging? It's only life or death. DaThomas is exactly right. We are not talking about refrigerators or cars here, we're talking about people's lives. If you don't see a difference, that tells me a lot about your "ethical footing". And it's not that positive.
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgrim800 View Post
    Read what he posted again Dathomas, we don't need regulations in the health insurance industry. If we need regulations on anything its on the price of the healthcare.

    Here is an example; an MRI here in the states can cost anywhere from 1500-2000+. Now how about we go on over to Japan how much does that same MRI cost? $160.

    You see the problem is not with the insurance industry. They are doing what it takes to stay alive. On top of all the scammers they get.
    Oh yes. The poor abused health insurance industry. Beset by "scammers" while all they're trying to do is help people. Puleez. Go peddle that fantasy elsewhere.

  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, by that logic the government should also be able to regulate the food industry too--because they make lots of profit.

    Of course the fallacy here is that the government somehow has a superior ethical footing upon which to regulate anyone, and that is ias big a laugh as I've ever heard.

    The thing I simply do not understand with you big government advocates is how you can have so much trust in government--willing to place so much of your lives in their hands, while being so terrified of anyone who dares make profit.

    Profit is the root of all evil huh? Of course, that ignores that this horrible profit and the pursuit of profit is what fuels ALL the government programs that are funded by taxes that these horrible profit-making entities and individuals make.

    And the really laughable part of this is that you have a CHOICE what profit-seeking company you deal with. We have a (somewhat) free economy, where you can choose to NOT deal with companies you dislike (for whatever reason). The government gives us no such choice, and as is being demonstrated now--the government "by the people" notion is all but gone--with our government happily pursuing things that the people clearly are against--by wide margins (politically speaking).

    Another thing--I really sick to death of people who scoff at the notion of the United States being a great country while touting how great every other nation is. It is an outrage to suggest that the United States is great, but its fine to tout every second world, socialist nation in the world as models of greatness. You like them, great--go there. I'm not saying you MUST leave the country I like--I just am pointing out that you have options. You love social democracies--you've got plenty to choose from. Why must you insist on destroying one of the only Liberty-Republics (as sad a state as we are in) left in the world.

    And that's really it isn't it. This is all about you FORCING what you want on me. Note--the opposite is not true. I'm not asking anyone for anything--YOU advocates of massive government are demanding that I participate in what you want. Well, guess what--the US Constitution isn't designed for that--its designed to keep people like you from using the Government as a tool of control. Of course, the Constitution is largely treated as an outdated curiosity by the left, so there is no wonder here.

    If you are going to tax me--fine, take what I earn and make it harder for me to provide for MY family, but stop with this nanny state garbage. I don't want the government involved in my healthcare. Do I not have a right to my own life without their intrusion into it? Do I not have the right to choose what is best for me and my own family?

    No Corporation has ever demanded that I participate in ANYTHING they come up with. No Corporation has the right to kick in my door and take what I've got if I don't wish to participate. Government does, and yet you merrily keep handing them more and more of not your power, but mine as well--against my will.

    KAM
    Seriously, let go of the "you're white on the left side while I'm white on the right side." mentality for a second and look in the middle. That being most of Europe where health care is handled through government regulated private insurance companies. I'll point again to the Netherlands and their recent change to private insurers with regulations. Got no problem with that.

    What I have a problem with is one in which a business model is based on denying benefits which translated to reality is, denied health care.

    As to being required to have health care, I would again point out it is the same as requiring drivers to carry liability insurance, BUT I think I've had this dance before in another thread and the exact same things are being smacked around, so g'day.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions