Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172223242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 726
  1. #521  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    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?
    Davidra.....first, that "required to buy insurance" part doesn't kick in until 2014....is your head so buried in the kool aid that you can't understand that? LOL Then, in 2014 when everyone will be "required" to buy health insurance or face a "penalty" (or tax, can't remember what obama is calling it these days, depends on what works better in court cases), in many cases it will be less expensive to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance. Of course, they can pay the penalty until they get sick and then enroll....yes, the insurance companies must be drooling over that...not sure why they aren't jumping for joy. It's like the individual plans for children....children are not required to enroll for coverage but insurance companies are required to accept any child. Hmmm, let's see....who will be running to enroll under this new mandate? You think all the healthy children that aren't currently covered are now running to get enrolled? You better think again. Rather, those unhealthy children would be the ones enrolling now. Now, stop for a second and think about this....healthy children enrollment isn't up because of this mandate but unhealthy children enrollment would be. Translation....more outflows than inflows. Translation.....premiums must be increased for ALL. I am amused that you refuse to acknowledge this issue other than to answer it in one of your usual ways: 1) "you've just explained why a single-payer system is needed" or 2) "Republicans want to kill children".
    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
  2.    #522  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Davidra.....first, that "required to buy insurance" part doesn't kick in until 2014....is your head so buried in the kool aid that you can't understand that? LOL Then, in 2014 when everyone will be "required" to buy health insurance or face a "penalty" (or tax, can't remember what obama is calling it these days, depends on what works better in court cases), in many cases it will be less expensive to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance. Of course, they can pay the penalty until they get sick and then enroll....yes, the insurance companies must be drooling over that...not sure why they aren't jumping for joy. It's like the individual plans for children....children are not required to enroll for coverage but insurance companies are required to accept any child. Hmmm, let's see....who will be running to enroll under this new mandate? You think all the healthy children that aren't currently covered are now running to get enrolled? You better think again. Rather, those unhealthy children would be the ones enrolling now. Now, stop for a second and think about this....healthy children enrollment isn't up because of this mandate but unhealthy children enrollment would be. Translation....more outflows than inflows. Translation.....premiums must be increased for ALL. I am amused that you refuse to acknowledge this issue other than to answer it in one of your usual ways: 1) "you've just explained why a single-payer system is needed" or 2) "Republicans want to kill children".
    I'm well aware of when it kicks in...and until it does, the insurance companies don't have any output from that population, do they?

    Simply, this is one interpretation of how the plan will be implemented. The implementation is yet to be determined. There can be changes at any time, and penaties assessed. You keep hammering away at what you THINK will happen, but the fact is you really don't know what will happen yet. That is the case in all large bills; the implementation is what is important. And it's NOT done yet, as you point out.

    And additionally, of course, you continue to assume the worst of people....that all of them will just pay the fine. The fact is that many of them will be glad to pay for a reasonable plan. By assuming the worst, that makes your argument better. I reject it. I think people are better than that.
    Last edited by davidra; 10/24/2010 at 03:40 PM.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #523  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    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?
    Nope, that wasn't what I was talking about, and you know it. That's a whole different issue... forcing people to buy insurance, I feel, is unconstitutional and very likely will be challenged in many states.

    You're just trying to change the focus of the discussion away from my point, as usual.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4.    #524  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nope, that wasn't what I was talking about, and you know it. That's a whole different issue... forcing people to buy insurance, I feel, is unconstitutional and very likely will be challenged in many states.

    You're just trying to change the focus of the discussion away from my point, as usual.
    Not really. My interpretation of what you were implying is that the "new" people that are added will not have paid anything in at the time they are added. I don't claim to be that knowledgable about what kind of reserve insurance companies have, but is your assumption that there will be immediate payouts that will be more than the income from the new customers? Why should that be the case?
  5. #525  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    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?
    just a quickie: Health Care: Employers Pass Increased Costs Onto Workers
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  6. #526  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm well aware of when it kicks in...and until it does, the insurance companies don't have any output from that population, do they?
    Not exactly true....the under age 19 part has kicked in for both individual and group business. Since healthy children aren't required to enroll, they will have plenty of output. Children who come on late, with no prior coverage, must now have their pre-ex conditions included. I had someone just last week fall under this. I'm glad their child will now be covered for his seizures, but, it's an example of what I've been trying to explain (not just what I THINK will happen....real life).

    In addition, group plans are now required to be changed to meet the following mandates: 1) have 100% no copay coverage for preventive services (unless Grandfathered) 2) get rid of lifetime maximums 3) no pre-ex conditions on children under the age of 19, and 4) dependents under the age of 26 allowed to be covered. Now, I am beginning to understand that you live in the government world where benefits can be increased with no additional inflows...but...in the real world, it don't work that way. Premiums have increased because these are increases in expenses. It's just a fact, but until you pull your head out of the government world of "everything is free, enjoy, enjoy" I don't expect you to realize that.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Simply, this is one interpretation of how the plan will be implemented. The implementation is yet to be determined. There can be changes at any time, and penaties assessed. You keep hammering away at what you THINK will happen, but the fact is you really don't know what will happen yet. That is the case in all large bills; the implementation is what is important. And it's NOT done yet, as you point out.
    What? Are you saying that the penalty is not going to be implemented or that it hasn't been set? Are you saying that if someone decides to go with the penalty (rather than the insurance) they will not be able to enroll for health coverage later? Tell me where you have heard this? As far as I know, unless it is repealed, this is the way it be.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And additionally, of course, you continue to assume the worst of people....that all of them will just pay the fine. The fact is that many of them will be glad to pay for a reasonable plan. By assuming the worst, that makes your argument better. I reject it. I think people are better than that.
    Yes davidra, it is time to face the cruel reality....people are like corporations, they are greedy and are out for the least expensive way. Now of course everyone will not do it this way (pay the penalty rather than the coverage), but are you telling me that no one will do this? There you go again, thinking everyone will go running to enroll for health coverage, jumping and clicking their heels as they go. I won't mention the 2 guys who didn't want to pay $13 per week for health insurance, because, well...that would be assuming the worst of people, huh?
    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.    #527  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not exactly true....the under age 19 part has kicked in for both individual and group business. Since healthy children aren't required to enroll, they will have plenty of output. Children who come on late, with no prior coverage, must now have their pre-ex conditions included. I had someone just last week fall under this. I'm glad their child will now be covered for his seizures, but, it's an example of what I've been trying to explain (not just what I THINK will happen....real life).

    In addition, group plans are now required to be changed to meet the following mandates: 1) have 100% no copay coverage for preventive services (unless Grandfathered) 2) get rid of lifetime maximums 3) no pre-ex conditions on children under the age of 19, and 4) dependents under the age of 26 allowed to be covered. Now, I am beginning to understand that you live in the government world where benefits can be increased with no additional inflows...but...in the real world, it don't work that way. Premiums have increased because these are increases in expenses. It's just a fact, but until you pull your head out of the government world of "everything is free, enjoy, enjoy" I don't expect you to realize that.


    Yes davidra, it is time to face the cruel reality....people are like corporations, they are greedy and are out for the least expensive way. Now of course everyone will not do it this way (pay the penalty rather than the coverage), but are you telling me that no one will do this? There you go again, thinking everyone will go running to enroll for health coverage, jumping and clicking their heels as they go. I won't mention the 2 guys who didn't want to pay $13 per week for health insurance, because, well...that would be assuming the worst of people, huh?
    I have a great suggestion for the health insurers who don't feel they are able to compete....get out of the kitchen. Or try cutting operating costs. I spent some time as an unpaid consultant to a non-profit health plan in exchange for them providing some education for students. Their offices were plush, in a high-rent area, they had about fifteen VP's they could have done without....sure, they were non-profit, but not for the people that worked there. For someone who favors free market, here's our chance to see just how well competition and cost-cutting works in the private sector.

    As far as greed, I'll put the uninsured working man up against the for-profit insurance corporations any day of the week. For every two guys who don't want to pay, I know many that would jump at the chance.

    So you actually agree that it's a good idea for someone to actually have insurance for her seizures? How NICE of you. But on the other hand, because you know two people that don't want to buy insurance, you would deny coverage to this young woman by repealing the law, right? Thanks. That clarifies things a lot.
  8. #528  
    ...i'm glad in your infinite knowledge that you as a "consultant" know which VPs a company can "do without".... And you keep talking about competing with govt insurance...thats an impossibility since no prvt corp can compete in an arena with a govt monopoly
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  9. #529  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have a great suggestion for the health insurers who don't feel they are able to compete....get out of the kitchen. Or try cutting operating costs. I spent some time as an unpaid consultant to a non-profit health plan in exchange for them providing some education for students. Their offices were plush, in a high-rent area, they had about fifteen VP's they could have done without....sure, they were non-profit, but not for the people that worked there. For someone who favors free market, here's our chance to see just how well competition and cost-cutting works in the private sector.

    As far as greed, I'll put the uninsured working man up against the for-profit insurance corporations any day of the week. For every two guys who don't want to pay, I know many that would jump at the chance.

    So you actually agree that it's a good idea for someone to actually have insurance for her seizures? How NICE of you. But on the other hand, because you know two people that don't want to buy insurance, you would deny coverage to this young woman by repealing the law, right? Thanks. That clarifies things a lot.
    My point was that this whole bill could have been better. Yes, some of the mandates are good....but they do cost money. Again, I realize you live in the "everything should be free" world. But when you wake up from your nirvana dream, you will soon realize there is a cost for these additional goodies....a fact you seem to refuse to accept.

    I think part of the problem is you see people after the fact....that is....after they have become ill. Of course those people are almost willing to pay anything for healthcare when they are looking at expensive treatments. I often see people when they are healthy and everything is good. These people, in many cases, just don't believe anything is going to happen and they would rather spend their money on other things. It's like the guy who decided not to pay $75 for fire protection....what was the chance his house would catch on fire? However, I would expect he thinks differently now. $75 looks like a good deal now, huh?
    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.    #530  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    My point was that this whole bill could have been better. Yes, some of the mandates are good....but they do cost money. Again, I realize you live in the "everything should be free" world. But when you wake up from your nirvana dream, you will soon realize there is a cost for these additional goodies....a fact you seem to refuse to accept.

    I think part of the problem is you see people after the fact....that is....after they have become ill. Of course those people are almost willing to pay anything for healthcare when they are looking at expensive treatments. I often see people when they are healthy and everything is good. These people, in many cases, just don't believe anything is going to happen and they would rather spend their money on other things. It's like the guy who decided not to pay $75 for fire protection....what was the chance his house would catch on fire? However, I would expect he thinks differently now. $75 looks like a good deal now, huh?
    When have I ever said "everything should be free"? Nothing is free. What I do say, quite simply, is that everyone should have access to high quality health care. That needs to be paid for, so it's not free. And it has nothing to do with anything else, like food, or shelter, or any of the other things that people ascribe to socialist societies. HEALTH CARE, OK?

    I see people every day who are not sick, but don't have primary care physicians because they work (some of them in health care settings) where they have no insurance. These are hardly deadbeats and it's an insult to the vast majority of 30 million people to assume they are as greedy and uncaring as....well, you make them out to be. Are there some? Yep. And that means you think the others should do without. I don't. Fairly simple, actually. Just like Medicare. Do I think millionaire retirees with huge retirement accounts should be given medical care at taxpayer expense? Nope but I'm not willing to give up that care for the vast majority of the elderly that would be destitute without it. It's about the greater good. In the long run, providing care for those who need it will save money and improve the health of the country. You can argue against that if you want, but you would be wrong.
  11. #531  
    so it's ok if they are cold, hungry and homeless, as long as they can get healthcare... they sort of all go together eventually, and that's what makes it socialistic.
  12.    #532  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    so it's ok if they are cold, hungry and homeless, as long as they can get healthcare... they sort of all go together eventually, and that's what makes it socialistic.

    "They"? You mean the people all around you that work with you, and provide services for you, and work in your town? Make sure you do your best to try and make them out to be "different" or "less worthy" than you. How insulting.

    That's an absurd statement on so many levels and just speaks to your stereotyping skills. Over 70% of the uninsured are from working families. The poor, homeless and hungry by and large don't need health insurance because many are eligible for Medicaid. And those issues are local issues, not even state issues, with the exception of food stamps. The poor have better access to health care than working famlies; that's the message you might want to consider.

    By the way, in Texas it's over 80%:

    Almost half of nonelderly Texans had no health coverage at some point in the past two years, and that emphasizes the need to make good on health care reform promises, an advocacy group and U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez said Thursday.

    A report released by Families USA found 44 percent of Texans did not have health insurance, many for six months or more, in 2007 and 2008, said Ron Pollack, the group's executive director.

    Of the 9.3 million Texans affected, 82.6 percent were in working families, Pollack said.

    “It means at least one person in their families was working part or full time, with the overwhelming majority of them working full time,” he said.
    http://www.mysanantonio.com/health/M..._families.html
    Last edited by davidra; 10/25/2010 at 09:30 AM.
  13.    #533  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...i'm glad in your infinite knowledge that you as a "consultant" know which VPs a company can "do without".... And you keep talking about competing with govt insurance...thats an impossibility since no prvt corp can compete in an arena with a govt monopoly
    As I recall, the insurers were afraid to compete with a public option that would have been required to pay for itself. The reason? They are unable to compete effectively because they refuse to change. Hey, it's their choice. They should feel free to get out of the market and let those who want to compete have at it.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #534  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As I recall, the insurers were afraid to compete with a public option that would have been required to pay for itself. The reason? They are unable to compete effectively because they refuse to change. Hey, it's their choice. They should feel free to get out of the market and let those who want to compete have at it.
    What change again?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #535  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As I recall, the insurers were afraid to compete with a public option that would have been required to pay for itself. The reason? They are unable to compete effectively because they refuse to change. Hey, it's their choice. They should feel free to get out of the market and let those who want to compete have at it.
    ....its an unlevel playing field....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  16. #536  
    @davidra

    you totally skipped my point. You suggested that the debate about medical care isn't tied to other aspects of socialism, and I suggest that it is.

    btw, I just lost my job and my wife just started a major health issue. I will be looking for you to help me figure out cobra and other ideas for avoiding bankruptcy.

    speaking of cobra, why the heck don't they allow me to change to lesser coverage and still use cobra? Classic example of a great intention that will be totally unaffordable to the person it was intended to help (me)...

    watch for a PM to tap your expertise.
  17.    #537  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    @davidra

    you totally skipped my point. You suggested that the debate about medical care isn't tied to other aspects of socialism, and I suggest that it is.

    btw, I just lost my job and my wife just started a major health issue. I will be looking for you to help me figure out cobra and other ideas for avoiding bankruptcy.

    speaking of cobra, why the heck don't they allow me to change to lesser coverage and still use cobra? Classic example of a great intention that will be totally unaffordable to the person it was intended to help (me)...

    watch for a PM to tap your expertise.
    I don't think it's necessarily tied. Of course, if you consider Germany to be socialist, then maybe you're right. Just because a country provides health care to all doesn't make them a socialist country. We provide education to all. Are we already socialist? Have we been for 100 years?

    Be glad to assist you with a PM....but hopefully it will be more about medicine and less about navigating COBRA. That requires a different kind of specialization.
  18.    #538  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    What change again?
    OK...you must really like seeing me post the same thing, which has already been posted twice in this thread, so no more. As the physician noted in his blog, SSA/Medicare was set up with minimal flexibility; insurers have not been able to get that level of simplicity and thus the high overhead. Remember?
  19. #539  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    btw, I just lost my job and my wife just started a major health issue. I will be looking for you to help me figure out cobra and other ideas for avoiding bankruptcy.

    speaking of cobra, why the heck don't they allow me to change to lesser coverage and still use cobra? Classic example of a great intention that will be totally unaffordable to the person it was intended to help (me)
    Sorry about the lost job and your wife's health issue, that stinks. I thought obama and joe said jobs were improving?As for your COBRA question, unless your employer offered more than one plan, you only have the option of that one plan. COBRA is just an extension of your current benefits. Something I always have to explain to people is that the COBRA premium is the actual premium your ER was paying for your premium (well, they will usually tack on a 3% admin charge, never understood that), so it isn't that COBRA is expensive, just that health insurance is.
    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
  20. #540  
    Review & Outlook: Big Insurance, Big Medicine - WSJ.com

    Interesting outlook on obama care.
    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

Posting Permissions