Page 26 of 37 FirstFirst ... 16212223242526272829303136 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 726
  1. #501  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That may be so, but clearly the teeth of this bill was focused on insurance.
    ...yeah and our friends on the left seem skip that part and try to take the moral high ground of "access to affordable healthcare" for all....thats why a few posts back I said that if those are your goals then you should oppose obamacare....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  2. #502  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And I'll say the same about the for-profit healthcare insurance corporations. I deal with Medicare on a regular basis....and they do just fine. Ask any recipient.
    I'll say the same for insurance companies that I deal with, they do just fine. When a client has called up with problems, I would say the majority of the time, in fact, I'd say maybe 75% to 80% of the time it is either and issue that was the fault of the provider (not filing correctly, not filing at all, etc) or the client simply did not understanding how their plan worked. Yes, I do run into the insurance company making mistakes, but if you have the right contact those are generally easy to fix. Can I fix all issues? Of course not, some times a claim issue is what it is....not covered. I to have had people complain about Medicare, especially when they have to place the dreaded phone call. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with those.
    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. #503  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You're right, this legislation did not provide what I would like to see....but:
    1. It's much better than what we have now for 30 million people
    2. Because the private sector will not be able to come around and become more efficient and compete, what I do want will be in our future at some point.

    Those two things make me just happy as a clam with the current bill. And if it just so happens that the privates can modernize, compete by cutting their overhead, etc, and actually provide the care, that's fine too. It's the outcome that's important to me, not the process.
    You keep acting like everyone is covered right now....that is simply not the case. What you are looking for is not even fully implemented until 2014. Even then, people can still opt out of health insurance and pay the fine of no more than about $700 per year per person (I believe max of around $2100 for a family). I don't know how that will work because why not just pay the fine (which will be lower than the insurance premium) and wait until you get sick or injured and enroll then? Has anyone been able to determine where those fines go? But you still have 2 1/2 years before folks over the age or 18 can not be turned down. On the PCIP plan, you have to go 6 months with no coverage before you can apply.
    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
  4. #504  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Another quick lie that comes to mind is the issue over attacking the Chamber for using foreign money to fund their adds. They had no evidence of that, and when challenged (by a liberal talk show host, I might add) on that fact, their come back was "well do you have evidence that they haven't".



    obama lies all the time and its really getting pathetic. Oh....wait....let's use axelrod's method...so you have evidence that he doesn't ever lie? LOL
    First of all, how do we know Schieffer's a "liberal"?

    But I digress. It's interesting how Obama "lies all the time," but insurance companies never do.

    One reason Obama hasn't provided evidence is because he can't--the Chamber has refused to disclose what foreign companies or countries are funding its political advertising, although they have confirmed they exist.

    For a person who is frightened about "becoming European"--I know, I know, healthcare, education, and national infrastructure worthy of modern industrialized nations are really scary concepts--you seem remarkably unconcerned that a foreign entity might be pouring in bags of money to influence our elections, and therefore our economy, for their own interests.

    How do you feel about "becoming Chinese"?
  5. #505  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    How do you feel about "becoming Chinese"?
    That could never happen. We aren't good enough at math.
  6. #506  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    First of all, how do we know Schieffer's a "liberal"?

    But I digress. It's interesting how Obama "lies all the time," but insurance companies never do.

    One reason Obama hasn't provided evidence is because he can't--the Chamber has refused to disclose what foreign companies or countries are funding its political advertising, although they have confirmed they exist.

    For a person who is frightened about "becoming European"--I know, I know, healthcare, education, and national infrastructure worthy of modern industrialized nations are really scary concepts--you seem remarkably unconcerned that a foreign entity might be pouring in bags of money to influence our elections, and therefore our economy, for their own interests.

    How do you feel about "becoming Chinese"?
    Tell you what.....obama shows where all his money that flooded into his website during the 2008 election came from, and then maybe the Chamber will disclose where their funds came from. Actually, I think Schieffer gave some figures on the foreign dues and how little money it was.....that amount of money wouldn't buy much ad time. obama and his libs simply are making up (yes, lying) things to win at all costs. It's exactly what obama said he was going to get rid of, politics as usual, and the ironic thing is he is worse than most.

    Oh really, Scheiffer isn't a liberal? Good one.

    Becoming Chinese? What? At the rate we are going, it could happen:
    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
  7. jhasty's Avatar
    Posts
    86 Posts
    Global Posts
    174 Global Posts
    #507  
    It's really simple why so many people are against the new Health Care law. It is because the Republicans have been shouting their lies so long and loud that many now believe them. And the Democrats won't speak up and defend it.
    Treo 300 -> Treo 600 -> Treo 650 -> Centro -> Pre -> Evo
  8. #508  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhasty View Post
    It's really simple why so many people are against the new Health Care law. It is because the Republicans have been shouting their lies so long and loud that many now believe them. And the Democrats won't speak up and defend it.
    Mmmm...kool aid....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  9.    #509  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So not-for-profit healthcare insurance corporations are ok in your book.
    Actually, as you well know, the difference between not-for-profit health plans and for-profit health plans is not nearly as great as one might think. There is still the excessive overhead, and in fact it's probably even worse in some not-for-profit plans that I am familiar with. You also know that insurance companies don't add to the cost primarily through their profits, but through their inability to cut their overheads....as I've mentioned a number of times but none of the insurance company fanboyz have bothered to respond to.
  10. #510  
    but there is no overhead or waste in the federal government.
  11.    #511  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...healthcare providers and health insurance/financing are completely different things that seem to be interchangable is the current debate....
    They need not be interchangeable, but they certainly should both be held responsible for the control of costs. Health insurers should either cut costs or lose their business, and the same goes for providers. The only way to have a financially viable health care system is regulation of both.
  12.    #512  
    Quote Originally Posted by pezman726 View Post
    I haven't followed this whole topic...and I don't feel like reading through all 24.5 pages, but here's my take. I work at a very large hospital, and we stand to lose a good chunk of change because of some of the stuff in the bill.....a lot of which still needs needs to be determined by the Secretary of Health.

    Work views, aside, here's how I feel. Some of the stuff in there I agree with (mainly the whole "pre-existing conditions" stuff), but It should not be mandated by the government. They just shouldn't have that type of power. But I'll give some nice clear numbers...for me at least. The price of my health insurance just went up 17% (more than $400) for next year. I don't think it would have gone up that much had this not passed.
    You're probably right. You should be furious at your insurance company. They are simply using the bill as an excuse to jack up their profits. After all, they have big CEO costs to cover.



    "The insurance companies are driven by perverse incentives that reward CEOs for imposing devastating rate hikes on families and businesses while denying care to people when they need it most," said HCAN Executive Director Ethan Rome. "It's indefensible that CEOs in America are profiting by gouging customers in such a shameless way."

    Among the HCAN report's findings:

    * CIGNA CEO Edward Hanway, who retired in December 2009, got the usual excessive pay and stock options that year but also gave himself a $111 million pension package as a going-away gift. Combined with pay received by his successor, David Cordani, the company parted with $136 million in CEO compensation in 2009. That is enough money to pay for 204,000 infants to receive the recommended series of seven well-baby visits in their first year.
    * CEO Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group banked $107.5 million in 2009, including $98.6 million from exercising stock options. Hemsley's total take would pay for up to 1.1 million women to receive mammograms.
    * CEO Ron Williams of Aetna Inc. collected $18.1 million in total compensation last year, enough to enough to pay for 4,853 people to undergo arthroscopic knee surgery.
    * CEO Angela Braly of Wellpoint Inc. got a 51 percent raise to $13.1 million in 2009. That amount would cover the cost of 2,500 hernia operations.

    "It's unconscionable that insurance companies are jacking up premiums and giving their CEOs multi-million dollar pay packages when families are struggling to make ends meet and businesses are barely keeping their doors open," Rome said. "We need to be creating jobs for America, not creating wealth for a handful of CEOs."

    Each year, health insurance companies charge their customers higher premiums and provide more restrictive coverage. Insurers blame the hikes on rising costs charged by health care providers, but the facts say otherwise. Meanwhile, health insurers set new profit records (the five largest for-profit health insurers reported net earnings of $12.2 billion in 2009) while compensating their top executives with exorbitant salaries and stock options.

    In January and February, WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary in California notified customers in the individual market that 2010 rates would rise by as much as 39 percent because of the weak economy and the soaring cost of medical care. Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times cast doubt on those explanations with a report on Anthem President Leslie Margolin's opposition to the politically explosive rate hikes. She urged WellPoint not to pursue them. Margolin also "privately pressed WellPoint to abandon the company's get-tough approach to longtime adversaries-doctors and hospitals-and instead collaborate as part of a new ‘healthcare transformation strategy' to cut costs and improve patient safety and the quality of care," the Times reported. WellPoint CEO Braly and her staff rejected her recommendations last month Braly ordered security guards to escort Margolin out of the Anthem offices. WellPoint recorded profit of $4.75 billion in 2009.

    CEOs From 10 Health Insurers Took Nearly $1 Billion in Compensation, Stock Options in Last Decade
  13.    #513  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    but there is no overhead or waste in the federal government.

    I'm pretty sure I said nothing of the kind. But I am saying that there's less overhead in Medicare than in ANY private health insurer, by a factor of a half or more. Logic would therefore suggest that one would get more for their money with Medicare....which I believe to be true, at least in terms of basic coverage.
  14.    #514  
    Quote Originally Posted by pezman726 View Post
    I haven't followed this whole topic...and I don't feel like reading through all 24.5 pages, but here's my take. I work at a very large hospital, and we stand to lose a good chunk of change because of some of the stuff in the bill.....a lot of which still needs needs to be determined by the Secretary of Health.

    Work views, aside, here's how I feel. Some of the stuff in there I agree with (mainly the whole "pre-existing conditions" stuff), but It should not be mandated by the government. They just shouldn't have that type of power. But I'll give some nice clear numbers...for me at least. The price of my health insurance just went up 17% (more than $400) for next year. I don't think it would have gone up that much had this not passed.
    And as another follow-up, you are actually surprised by this behavior? Essentially they are taking advantage of the situation to screw you. Enjoy. Just don't blame the health care bill.


    Insurance companies are not only raising rates considerably, they’re blaming the increases on the healthcare reform law — a move the Obama administration isn’t happy with.
    Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that some insurance companies hiked up their premiums nearly 20% in September — and blamed some of the increases on the mandates of the health reform law.
    The Obama administration’s response: Those who enact “unjustified” rate hikes linked to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will be blocked from the new state-run insurance exchanges.
    Millions of people are expected to use the exchanges starting in 2014 to buy coverage.
    Healthcare reform didn’t receive all of the blame for the recent rate increases. Rising premiums were also attributed to the higher price of medical services and the impact of younger, healthier people dropping coverage due to budget constraints in the tight economy.
    But according to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, some insurers have begun notifying enrollees that their premiums will increase as a result of the PPACA — an action that will not be tolerated.
    Sebelius’ views are shared with a number of Democrats who are calling for stiffer premium regulations. Legislation has already been proposed that would give the federal government the power to reject unreasonable rate increases

    Washington warns health insurers: ‘Don’t jack up rates’ | HR Morning | Your daily dose of HR
  15. #515  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    They need not be interchangeable, but they certainly should both be held responsible for the control of costs. Health insurers should either cut costs or lose their business, and the same goes for providers. The only way to have a financially viable health care system is regulation of both.
    ....yet obamacare only adds to costs...for everyone....so i'm against it.
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #516  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    They need not be interchangeable, but they certainly should both be held responsible for the control of costs. Health insurers should either cut costs or lose their business, and the same goes for providers. The only way to have a financially viable health care system is regulation of both.
    David, if health insurers are operating on just 3% of plan revenues in order to administrate those plans, just where do you think these 'controls' should be applied? This are the only costs that they have direct control over. As stated many times in the past, the law that was passed did nothing to actually control health care "costs", and instead simply places the burden on insurance companies to absorb the increase costs.

    And I think it's pretty well been settled that once the government gets involved with its 'regulations', administrative costs sky rocket.

    This is why insurance companies are increasing rates all over the country. Thanks to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17.    #517  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    David, if health insurers are operating on just 3% of plan revenues in order to administrate those plans, just where do you think these 'controls' should be applied? This are the only costs that they have direct control over. As stated many times in the past, the law that was passed did nothing to actually control health care "costs", and instead simply places the burden on insurance companies to absorb the increase costs.

    And I think it's pretty well been settled that once the government gets involved with its 'regulations', administrative costs sky rocket.

    This is why insurance companies are increasing rates all over the country. Thanks to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
    Non sequitur.

    Please state exactly why insurance companies are increasing their rates. Because they think that sometime in the future they may have a decrease in their record profits? Or because they want to screw the public and make as much money as they can AND get to blame it on the adminstration? I favor the latter explanation. You, on the other hand, have been drinking corporate kool aid. You trust HMO's; I trust Medicare. Lower overhead, no bonuses for refusing care....there are so many negatives to the health insurance business that it won't take much more antisocial behavior like this until the country will be ready for a single payor plan. And the health insurers can blame themselves and their quest for short-term profits when that happens.

    Did you even read the article about insurance companies increasing their rates? It's a profit grab, and I hope the adminstration keeps its promise to exclude all those who cannot justify these outrageous assault on customers from the exchanges.

    We've already talked about the 25% overhead ad nauseum. Modernize, simplify, and cut workforce. That's one way to cut costs, wouldn't you say?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #518  
    No, because this law starts or increases coverage for those that haven't been paying in to the system. The money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, it has to come from those that have been paying in to the system, i.e., rate increases are required.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19.    #519  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ....yet obamacare only adds to costs...for everyone....so i'm against it.
    Yeah, well, some people might consider waiting until implementation decisions are actually made. The fact is that you have no idea whether it will really add to costs or not. It's just a talking point. And you disagree with the CBO, don't you? I figure you must have done a fair amount of research into the future effects of the bill; can you share it please?
  20.    #520  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, because this law starts or increases coverage for those that haven't been paying in to the system. The money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, it has to come from those that have been paying in to the system, i.e., rate increases are required.
    Are you talking about those that will be now required to buy insurance? Don't you think that might help offset the costs of their care? Millions and millions of new customers? Most of them working?
    Don't you think the money will come from the newly insured? If not, why?

Posting Permissions