Page 13 of 37 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516171823 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 726
  1.    #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I didn't say that the government should be running the healthcare plans, HUGE difference in what you advocate.....there would still be the insurance companies providing policies, it's just a reimbursement program that the government would be involved with. The states will know your income when you file your tax return, so they would already know what % you qualify for. The individuals would still be paying their premiums. If their employer pays 1/2 of their premium through group coverage, they would only get reimbursed for the portion that they actually pay. The healthcare bill will start requiring ERs to start reporting on employees W-2s the amount they pay towards healthcare in 2011, so that part is already underway. Why must you be so determined to have the government run even more of our lives? Why? Why? Why? Why are you so confident in the government running anything when they have proven time and time again that they can't do it efficiently?
    Yeah, there's a huge difference....no profit for insurance companies. That's a good thing, since they don't provide services. Why should states pay taxpayer money to insurance companies when they don't have to? With the Medicaid model, there is less overhead. Not that it doesn't need to be reformed; it does, but that is no reason to essentially throw state money away. That's why Medicaid can be a better state-run plan. Remember, we're talking STATE government here, not federal. They shouldn't have to support insurance companies just to provide care to their population. If you must there's always the Massachusetts model, which is tightly regulated but uses private insurers. Of course, it almost exactly mirrors the Obama health plan, so there's that for you to swallow.

    The funny thing is that you really actually believe that the current private non-governmental system is "run efficiently". Until you can actually see the total failure of the current system, you won't understand. And you won't see that as long as all you see are your private insured clients, and continue to ignore the steady climb of the percent of the GDP spent on health care in the "private" unregulated system, and the massive numbers of people without care. Sometime you will, I suspect.
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, there's a huge difference....no profit for insurance companies. That's a good thing, since they don't provide services. Why should states pay taxpayer money to insurance companies when they don't have to? With the Medicaid model, there is less overhead. Not that it doesn't need to be reformed; it does, but that is no reason to essentially throw state money away. That's why Medicaid can be a better state-run plan. Remember, we're talking STATE government here, not federal. They shouldn't have to support insurance companies just to provide care to their population. If you must there's always the Massachusetts model, which is tightly regulated but uses private insurers. Of course, it almost exactly mirrors the Obama health plan, so there's that for you to swallow.

    The funny thing is that you really actually believe that the current private non-governmental system is "run efficiently". Until you can actually see the total failure of the current system, you won't understand. And you won't see that as long as all you see are your private insured clients, and continue to ignore the steady climb of the percent of the GDP spent on health care in the "private" unregulated system, and the massive numbers of people without care. Sometime you will, I suspect.
    Well....not sure how long Medicaid will be here in SC: Health care funding on the line | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #243  
    Don't like repeating myself so I'll bring up something new:

    How about the fact that one can no longer use their HSA to purchase non-prescription drugs?
  4.    #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    still no explanation of what happened at walter reed...
    Maybe because it's one facilities problem at a very busy site. They had horribly outmoded facilities which they subsequently shut down. Did you read the Time article? Or did you just assume they lie? Veteran's Care is far from perfect....but there is no system that is. And as the article says, they have a higher ranking for satisfaction than private insurers, and have demonstrated better quality. But by all means, keep harping on one incident from 4 years ago and using that to complain about the care provided. By all means, keep scrambling. You'll find something.
  5.    #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post

    It would have been gone quicker with a profit motive in the middle. As I said, Medicaid needs much overhaul....which is part of the health care reform bill, since Medicaid will be the way to provide the majority of care to the currently uninsured. There have been a bunch of attempts to run Medicaid through private HMO's, just like Medicare. Most have not reduced costs (just like Medicare Advantage). The way to reduce costs for Medicaid patients is through the medical-home model, but there's no sense in bringing that up....it will just cause more irritation and angst in the closed mind of conservatives.
  6.    #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Don't like repeating myself so I'll bring up something new:

    How about the fact that one can no longer use their HSA to purchase non-prescription drugs?
    Makes perfect sense. They are ineligible for deduction as medical expenses in the tax code. There is no reason you should be able to use pre-tax money to pay for them. The whole thing has been irrational. This makes much more sense.
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Don't like repeating myself so I'll bring up something new:

    How about the fact that one can no longer use their HSA to purchase non-prescription drugs?
    Can you use an FSA for that?
  8.    #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Can you use an FSA for that?
    Not in the new bill...same reason.
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Don't like repeating myself so I'll bring up something new:

    How about the fact that one can no longer use their HSA to purchase non-prescription drugs?
    I don't see this as a huge deal. I save my HSA funds for the "big" stuff. HSA's actually escaped this madness relatively unscathed. The only other "hit" was increasing the penalty from 10% to 20% for withdrawing funds for non-medical expenses and you shouldn't be doing that anyway, so, also not a biggie.

    I think one reason they didn't hit HSA's very hard was because the PCIP plan that was set up under health care reform is an HSA plan. I guess they figured it would look extremely silly to offer an HSA plan through the PCIP and take benefits away. Of course, since that would have been ridiculous, I'm actually surprised they didn't. What a bunch of loons.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not in the new bill...same reason.
    Yup....something I don't say often, davidra is right. If the doctor prescribes an over-the-counter you can still do it, but other than that, it's a no go. They did make a max for FSAs of $2500 for medical. You can still make contributions to an FSA for dependent care, which is separate from the health cap of $2500. I think the dependent cap is $5000....I believe.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11.    #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I think one reason they didn't hit HSA's very hard was because the PCIP plan that was set up under health care reform is an HSA plan. I guess they figured it would look extremely silly to offer an HSA plan through the PCIP and take benefits away. Of course, since that would have been ridiculous, I'm actually surprised they didn't. What a bunch of loons.
    This is a classic. This is exactly the reason you come off sounding like the single most clueless person alive with regard to your own bias. You say that the bill was appropriate with the way they treated your very favorite health construct, and then you manufacture some artificial reason why, and then you call them loons. Did you consider saying "Gee. they really did a good job with regard to HSA's"? No, of course not. You are a typical republican. Even when things go your way, you won't support them because that might be admitting there are some good things done by those you hate.

    Yep, you're a classic all right.
  12. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Makes perfect sense. They are ineligible for deduction as medical expenses in the tax code. There is no reason you should be able to use pre-tax money to pay for them. The whole thing has been irrational. This makes much more sense.
    Why? There are so many non-prescription drugs out there that used to be prescription and quite a few that are both. Why in the world should it make a difference if I see a doctor or not and end up with the exact same thing? And why shouldn't medical expenses be tax deductible? If you think it is such a basic right, why should it be taxed?
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Why? There are so many non-prescription drugs out there that used to be prescription and quite a few that are both. Why in the world should it make a difference if I see a doctor or not and end up with the exact same thing? And why shouldn't medical expenses be tax deductible? If you think it is such a basic right, why should it be taxed?
    I blame meth makers.
  14.    #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Why? There are so many non-prescription drugs out there that used to be prescription and quite a few that are both. Why in the world should it make a difference if I see a doctor or not and end up with the exact same thing? And why shouldn't medical expenses be tax deductible? If you think it is such a basic right, why should it be taxed?
    I would imagine the rationale would be something like "so you want to deduct your hot tub because you claim it's a medical expense? Oh...and your magnetic bracelet with the diamonds too?". Who is going to determine what a "medical expense" is? Apparently they have decided that if a doctor agrees that it is a medical expense, then it's a medical expense that can be deducted. Of course, there's always the chance that doctors have lobbied so that they will profit from having to write prescriptions for OTC drugs....but I am pretty sure that's unlikely. Most docs don't charge for writing prescriptions for their own patients and don't require a visit.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    This is a classic. This is exactly the reason you come off sounding like the single most clueless person alive with regard to your own bias. You say that the bill was appropriate with the way they treated your very favorite health construct, and then you manufacture some artificial reason why, and then you call them loons. Did you consider saying "Gee. they really did a good job with regard to HSA's"? No, of course not. You are a typical republican. Even when things go your way, you won't support them because that might be admitting there are some good things done by those you hate.

    Yep, you're a classic all right.
    The "what a bunch of loons" comment was for the writers of the vast majority of the health care reform bill, because most of what is in the bill does nothing but cause premiums to increase. It is odd that they left the one product that can actually put some control in the hands of the consumer alone. Government usually destroys something that works. It's ironic that the democrats usually claim that an HSA plan is a horrible plan and only for the wealthy, and yet the PCIP plan is an HSA.....now that is classic, lol. And, as I said, the likely reason they left the HSA virtually untouched.

    And again with this "hate" word. I've come to the conclusion that you throw that word around just because it sounds good. I've said this before, there are very, very, very few people that I would say I hate. There are many people I would hate to be stuck in an elevator with, but hate them?....yikes, I just don't see it that way. My guess is there are many people that you hate (including me) and so it makes you feel better to accuse others of hating. So, if it makes you feel better....I'm cool with that.....because I don't hate you....just disagree with you on almost any and everything. Unlike you, some people can disagree and not hate.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16.    #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    The "what a bunch of loons" comment was for the writers of the vast majority of the health care reform bill, because most of what is in the bill does nothing but cause premiums to increase. It is odd that they left the one product that can actually put some control in the hands of the consumer alone. Government usually destroys something that works. It's ironic that the democrats usually claim that an HSA plan is a horrible plan and only for the wealthy, and yet the PCIP plan is an HSA.....now that is classic, lol. And, as I said, the likely reason they left the HSA virtually untouched.

    And again with this "hate" word. I've come to the conclusion that you throw that word around just because it sounds good. I've said this before, there are very, very, very few people that I would say I hate. There are many people I would hate to be stuck in an elevator with, but hate them?....yikes, I just don't see it that way. My guess is there are many people that you hate (including me) and so it makes you feel better to accuse others of hating. So, if it makes you feel better....I'm cool with that.....because I don't hate you....just disagree with you on almost any and everything. Unlike you, some people can disagree and not hate.
    Maybe the people who wrote it weren't interested in democratic or republican ideas, but just wanted the best bill they could get under ridiculous circumstances. I know that's hard for you to believe because it was written by democrats, but rather than saying this was a good choice, you found some secret rationale for why they did it. Do you really think they are trying to make things worse? Do you really think everything they do is only to foster the democratic agenda? The fact is that you will give them no credit for anything positive, even if it coincides with your beliefs. You can call that whatever you want. "Republican" works for me.

    And I don't hate you, never even implied that at all. Doesn't mean I want to spend any time stuck in an elevator with you, however. We have very different world views,that's for sure.
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe the people who wrote it weren't interested in democratic or republican ideas, but just wanted the best bill they could get under ridiculous circumstances. I know that's hard for you to believe because it was written by democrats, but rather than saying this was a good choice, you found some secret rationale for why they did it. Do you really think they are trying to make things worse? Do you really think everything they do is only to foster the democratic agenda? The fact is that you will give them no credit for anything positive, even if it coincides with your beliefs. You can call that whatever you want. "Republican" works for me.

    And I don't hate you, never even implied that at all. Doesn't mean I want to spend any time stuck in an elevator with you, however. We have very different world views,that's for sure.
    Yes....I do believe they want this to fail. Reminds me of that line from the Bond movie, "No Mr. Bond....I want you to die." They want this to be a failure because it will foster the idea that the only option that will work is a single payer system. That is their goal. You can deny that, but I know for a fact it is obama's goal as I've seen him say it. Go look on youtube, he says that is his goal. So, they rush a bill out that has soo many holes in it that they couldn't possibly have taken it serious so they could run on having done something about health care. Of course, very few democrats are running on that issue because they know it is a dog of a bill and the majority of Americans are against it.

    And here is yet another company, 3M, planning to drop coverage on some retirees due to reform. Of course, the reasoning behind this is they (the retired employees who are not yet eligible for Medicare) will be able to get coverage through the exchanges. So much for obama's promise that this bill would not effect your plan. "If you like your current coverage, you can keep your current coverage." BS The bill made it so there is no incentive for ER's to keep their existing plans for some. In fact, in some cases the penalty of $2000 per employee (for groups over 50 who don't provide health coverage) will be far less than the cost of paying for health coverage for employees. It's a no brainer for many businesses....unload their existing health care plan and save money (dang, more money hungry businesses...they should be out-lawed in a socialistic society!). Oh....here is the link for the 3M news: Health law's insurance plans for pre-existing conditions are slow to enroll; 3M to drop early retiree coverage

    And I agree....stuck in an elevator with a Florida/UNC plan would be hell. Oh...congrats....I think the Gators went 2 weeks with no players being arrested!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18.    #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes....I do believe they want this to fail. Reminds me of that line from the Bond movie, "No Mr. Bond....I want you to die." They want this to be a failure because it will foster the idea that the only option that will work is a single payer system. That is their goal. You can deny that, but I know for a fact it is obama's goal as I've seen him say it. Go look on youtube, he says that is his goal. So, they rush a bill out that has soo many holes in it that they couldn't possibly have taken it serious so they could run on having done something about health care. Of course, very few democrats are running on that issue because they know it is a dog of a bill and the majority of Americans are against it.
    I disagree. I don't think they want it to fail. They just have the understanding that it is very likely to fail. The reason is simple. Any plan that excludes a public option or a single payor plan would likely fail. There is just no way to control costs, and especially when dealing with insurance companies who survive by the profit margin, they will bail. Only by distributing the risk totally will any plan work. Whether it's a privately-run or government-run single payor. in the long run that's what will keep down costs. But that doesn't mean they want this bill to fail. If it works, I am sure they'd be delighted. But the insurers are too shortsighted to understand that the more they pull out to maximize their profits, when they don't really even know what their situation will be like when the plan is instituted, the more likely they are pushing this toward the exclusion of all private insurers. Since I favor that, works for me, but I would also be delighted if insurance companies worked with the plan to make it succeed. As I've told you many times, I don't care how it's done as long as it works.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #259  
    On and on and on and on with the evil health insurance companies mantra! It's getting ridiculous, guys. If you totally wiped out all of the insurance companies in the US, you honestly think that the 3% "profit" margin would make a difference in bottom line costs? Or even if you'd still have that margin above costs (as if big gov would actually be more effecient at administrating insurance)?

    Somebody needs to stop drinking the koolaid, and it ain't me.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes....I do believe they want this to fail. Reminds me of that line from the Bond movie, "No Mr. Bond....I want you to die." They want this to be a failure because it will foster the idea that the only option that will work is a single payer system. That is their goal. You can deny that, but I know for a fact it is obama's goal as I've seen him say it. Go look on youtube, he says that is his goal. So, they rush a bill out that has soo many holes in it that they couldn't possibly have taken it serious so they could run on having done something about health care. Of course, very few democrats are running on that issue because they know it is a dog of a bill and the majority of Americans are against it.
    So your theory is that the majority politicians made this bill to fail so that.. what? It convinces the minority politicians to support what a majority of Americans have been in support of for several years now, a single-payer system? It's amazing how devious and calculating government can be at times!

    Here's my theory, I think that they were attempting to garner a bipartisan support but ended up making too many concessions to the minority party with nothing in return. Then figuring they needed ANYTHING to go through after an entire year long debate and restructuring of the bill they just went ahead with the bill as it was at the time rather than trying to remove the concessions they had made. That pretty much broke the intended purpose of the bill and added opposition from those that wanted real reform to the already existing opposition of those that either just hate government in general or currently hate government because the Right-wing is telling them to hate government for the moment.

Posting Permissions