Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 212627282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 726
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #601  
    We have policies regarding trolling and baiting. If you don't agree with someone, politely discuss and debate your ideas. Let's show respect for one another, please.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #602  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    whatever they do, obama won't sign it.
    Very true.

    Actually I think that last night was a potentially bad night for Republicans but a potentially good night for the future of this country.

    Let me explain.


    First,
    why its potentially bad for Republicans:

    It is more than likely that the next two years, on a national scale moreso than a state scale, nothing will get done.
    Because the Republicans sweeped in such a manor...Obama and the democrats can now use the excuse "well the republicans wouldn't let me do anything and derailed all attempts at improving anything, that's why nothing has improved overall".
    This could very well cause the reelection of Obama.
    Yet again we will potentially be electing(or reelecting) someone for the wrong reasons.
    [not trying to imply any republican put up for election in 2012 will be any better]

    Here's why it's potentially a good night for the future of the country:

    [Please do not take this as me being for OR against the tea party movement]


    The tea party movement is about 20% of the Republican party. They have already said that if the Republicans don't do the things they want they will split off.
    There's a good reason that the tea party is only 20%.
    No group gets everything it wants.
    This could cause a split in the Republican party.
    If this occurs we could be seeing the making of a three party system or more.

    That could change everything.
    And likely for the better.
    Last edited by Mattykinsx; 11/03/2010 at 03:58 PM. Reason: spell correction
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #603  
    This guy .
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #604  
    tea partiers didn't say they would split off (as in 3rd party) but rather that they would caucus separately.

    I assume they would only do that if they an figure out how to do it without turning the majority (and thus control) back to the democrats.

    what they need to do is stop earmarks ( pork barrel spending unrelated to the bill containing it) and stop the growth of entitlement spending. American voters have been clear on those issues.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #605  
    The whole premise is wrong. The Tea Party isn't 'part' of the Republican Party. It's a mix that formed 'outside' on it's own. Maybe most of them are also Republican's, and they might certainly cause the Republican's to shift their platform, but even if they organize for one election or two, I don't see them forming into a lasting 3rd party.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #606  
    Interesting: Obama administration retools new health program

    I loved this: Government economists had projected that people turned down by private insurers would flock to the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, with 375,000 expected to sign up this year. But as of this week, a little more than 8,000 had enrolled, officials said.
    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.    #607  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Interesting: Obama administration retools new health program

    I loved this: Government economists had projected that people turned down by private insurers would flock to the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, with 375,000 expected to sign up this year. But as of this week, a little more than 8,000 had enrolled, officials said.
    Duh. $400 to $600 per month? What happened to all the $50 a month plans that your acquaintances are refusing to buy?

    News flash: many people without insurance don't have a lot of money, pre-existing conditions or not. And expecting competition to do anything when you're talking about people who will actually use their insurance is totally unrealistic. There's two ways to easily fix this problem: first, force all insurers to provide insurance right now for pre-existing conditions as a requirement for staying in business, while controlling prices so there actually is some competition, and two, a single-payor plan so nobody has a premium. The first will kick in a few years. The second will happen at some point when health care costs force the issue and people wake up. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are staying away because the republicans have scared them away from death panels.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #608  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if some people are staying away because the republicans have scared them away from death panels.
    Yeah... that's it. Keep on thinking that.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #609  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Duh. $400 to $600 per month? What happened to all the $50 a month plans that your acquaintances are refusing to buy?

    News flash: many people without insurance don't have a lot of money, pre-existing conditions or not. And expecting competition to do anything when you're talking about people who will actually use their insurance is totally unrealistic. There's two ways to easily fix this problem: first, force all insurers to provide insurance right now for pre-existing conditions as a requirement for staying in business, while controlling prices so there actually is some competition, and two, a single-payor plan so nobody has a premium. The first will kick in a few years. The second will happen at some point when health care costs force the issue and people wake up. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are staying away because the republicans have scared them away from death panels.
    You know....your can't seem to get this through your head, so I'll try one more time (serenity now....serenity now). The $13 per week that the 2 employees refused to pay were AFTER the portion of the premium that the ER was paying. This is really quite simple....not sure why you continue to think that their total premium was $56 per month. Yes, this was THEIR portion of the premium, but not the total. You continue to gloss over that they decided health insurance wasn't worth them spending $56 per month on, which was my point. Some people simply don't want to spend their money on health insurance that they don't think they need. I would be willing to bet these 2 individuals are spending $56 on something else that is considerably less important. I realize you see people who are in the middle of health issues and would love to spend $56 to have health coverage, but you simply choose to ignore the fact that some people don't want to spend any money. Oh sure, they want health coverage, but only if you and I pay for it. So please, can you stop saying I keep discussing insurance that is only $56 per month?

    The PCIP program is paid entirely out of an invidivual's pocket. Can many not afford it? You bet. But I believe many choose not to afford it because they have other things that are more important to them. It's interesting to note that the government, as usual, has little regard for the actual cost of the benefit because government doesn't have to worry about such things. People can't afford it? No problem, just lower the premium and go further into debt. Our government simply does not understand the basic concept of needing money coming in to equal money going out. Crazy.
    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. #610  
    Government, despite who is in control of it, will always find a way to justify what it wants to do at the time.

    Google Maps Blamed for Costa Rica Invasion
  11. #611  
    Excuse me if this has already been said, but isn't health insurance a whole lot more than $56 a month?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/08/2010 at 06:06 PM.
  12.    #612  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    You know....your can't seem to get this through your head, so I'll try one more time (serenity now....serenity now). The $13 per week that the 2 employees refused to pay were AFTER the portion of the premium that the ER was paying. This is really quite simple....not sure why you continue to think that their total premium was $56 per month. Yes, this was THEIR portion of the premium, but not the total. You continue to gloss over that they decided health insurance wasn't worth them spending $56 per month on, which was my point. Some people simply don't want to spend their money on health insurance that they don't think they need. I would be willing to bet these 2 individuals are spending $56 on something else that is considerably less important. I realize you see people who are in the middle of health issues and would love to spend $56 to have health coverage, but you simply choose to ignore the fact that some people don't want to spend any money. Oh sure, they want health coverage, but only if you and I pay for it. So please, can you stop saying I keep discussing insurance that is only $56 per month?

    The PCIP program is paid entirely out of an invidivual's pocket. Can many not afford it? You bet. But I believe many choose not to afford it because they have other things that are more important to them. It's interesting to note that the government, as usual, has little regard for the actual cost of the benefit because government doesn't have to worry about such things. People can't afford it? No problem, just lower the premium and go further into debt. Our government simply does not understand the basic concept of needing money coming in to equal money going out. Crazy.
    And what YOU can't get through your head is that I don't care about their portion...it's the total that counts. People with no existing insurance can't bump off the remainder of the premium on their employer. Do I think people are stupid (yes, I chose that term) for not paying $50 a month for health insurance? Yes, dam right. But someone is paying the rest of the overpriced premium that is resulting in "record profits" for the insurance companies, as shown in Cellmatrix's graph. And those prices are running up the costs of our cars, for example, by $2000 per car, and preventing us from competing with Japan, who spend $50 per car on health insurance. Again, the obvious solution is to do away with premiums altogether. The argument for ANY insurance is the distribution of risk. There is no greater distribution of risk that having everyone being covered, and everyone who pays taxes contributing to everyone's health care....including their own.
  13. #613  
    Sorry I arrived at this conversation late, and I jumped in without reading the recent (long) thread. If you take into account the fairly heavy average contribution paid by employers (that is if you are lucky enough to get employer subsidy), Clemgrad does paint a realistic scenario of $60 a month paid by single people for health insurance,


    However as David points out, it is the total costs of health care which is the main problem, and it is getting worse every year. Other countries with universal health coverage do pay a lot less per capita than the US does, and do much better in many health indexes (like life span and infant mortality) than the US does.
    Healthcare Costs Around the World - VisualEconomics.com
    In addition to the examples in other countries examples here in the US drive this point home even better. For some time now, the VA health care system administered by the federal government has done more with less resources than the private sector, and has consistently outranked the private sector in patient satisfaction as well.
    The Veterans Health Administration: quality, value... [Am J Manag Care. 2004] - PubMed result
    Vets Give VA Top Health Care Rating – Five Years in a Row - Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Defense.gov News Article: VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction
    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME
    Vets Give VA Top Health Care Rating – Five Years in a Row - Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
  14. #614  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Sorry I arrived at this conversation late, and I jumped in without reading the recent (long) thread. If you take into account the fairly heavy average contribution paid by employers (that is if you are lucky enough to get employer subsidy), Clemgrad does paint a realistic scenario of $60 a month paid by single people for health insurance,
    Thanks for acknowledging that you understand what I was saying....for some reason davidra doesn't understand that simple concept. I started another post to try and explain it but just said it, so glad to see you got it.

    On another note....just got off the phone with Aetna because I received another notice about yet another hospital coming off their network. I have a group that is spread across the country (probably in 26 states), and in the last 4 weeks I have received notices about negotiations breaking down with hospital groups and Aetna having no choice but to drop them from their network. Here is a classic example of people not understanding that premiums are tied to what providers charge. Aetna could have bent over and accepted the increase in fees that these hospitals and physicians wanted, but guess what that would have meant? Yup, further increases in premiums. Because....now follow this....if hospitals and doctors can charge more (this means the amount of the claim they submit to the insurance companies rises) then the insurance companies must also charge more for the insurance. See how that works? Providers raise their fees.....insurance companies raise their premiums. Davidra likes to paint this picture of insurance companies raising premiums just for the sake of profits (or as davidra likes to say, "record profits"), but the fact is they increase premiums to offset increase in provider fees. So, shouldn't Aetna be applauded for fighting to try and keep fees down????

    Davidra has a problem with insurance companies making a profit (I think the average profit margin I've seen for health insurance carriers is around 3.5%), but then never questions hospitals or physicians making profits. Hmmm....I wonder if that might be because he is a physician? Interesting.
    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
  15.    #615  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Thanks for acknowledging that you understand what I was saying....for some reason davidra doesn't understand that simple concept. I started another post to try and explain it but just said it, so glad to see you got it.

    On another note....just got off the phone with Aetna because I received another notice about yet another hospital coming off their network. I have a group that is spread across the country (probably in 26 states), and in the last 4 weeks I have received notices about negotiations breaking down with hospital groups and Aetna having no choice but to drop them from their network. Here is a classic example of people not understanding that premiums are tied to what providers charge. Aetna could have bent over and accepted the increase in fees that these hospitals and physicians wanted, but guess what that would have meant? Yup, further increases in premiums. Because....now follow this....if hospitals and doctors can charge more (this means the amount of the claim they submit to the insurance companies rises) then the insurance companies must also charge more for the insurance. See how that works? Providers raise their fees.....insurance companies raise their premiums. Davidra likes to paint this picture of insurance companies raising premiums just for the sake of profits (or as davidra likes to say, "record profits"), but the fact is they increase premiums to offset increase in provider fees. So, shouldn't Aetna be applauded for fighting to try and keep fees down????

    Davidra has a problem with insurance companies making a profit (I think the average profit margin I've seen for health insurance carriers is around 3.5%), but then never questions hospitals or physicians making profits. Hmmm....I wonder if that might be because he is a physician? Interesting.
    Maybe you should read my post again. As I said, and exactly as Cellmatrix said, it's the total cost that is the problem, not the amount not covered by employers. The point is someone has to pay for it, and it ends up being you since the employer will just increase their costs to cover the costs of increased health insurance. Does that seem to make sense to you? Now, let's try and move on to the rest of your post (as it is).

    All you are saying is that insurance companies continue to cherry-pick,just like private hospitals. They only want to provide coverage in the instance where they will make a clear profit. And no matter how many times you talk about how low the profits are, that doesn't negate the following two ironclad facts: 1. these are record profits, more than ever in the past, and you know it, and 2. it's not just the profits, but the massive and wasteful overhead by the insurance companies that drives up the cost of healthcare. You know both of these facts to be true, because you will not find any references, no matter how biased, that will show them to be wrong....because they are correct.

    At the same time, that doesn't excuse providers/hospitals increasing their profits without justification....except I'll be more than willing to bet that neither hospitals nor providers are making "record profits" right now. Possibly, but I'm betting not. Nevertheless, there should be reasonable controls for reimbursement, and I've said that from the beginning of these discussions, as you well know. So by all means, thanks for the informative post.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #616  
    How can you possibly continue to ignore the fact that insurance covers the inflated costs they're presented by the providers and institutions? Amazing.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #617  
    I'm stil astounded that a business needs to justify increasing profits...
  18.    #618  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    How can you possibly continue to ignore the fact that insurance covers the inflated costs they're presented by the providers and institutions? Amazing.
    Maybe it's because my hospital lost $13 million last year due to uncompensated care. And guess what? In order to stay in business, they need to pass along that loss to you in "inflated costs". Of course, for-profit hospitals do somewhat better, since they don't have to deal with as many uninsured patients....they just dump them. Do have any more respect for those hospitals than the insurance companies? Not a chance. However, at least the hospitals actually provide health care.
  19.    #619  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I'm stil astounded that a business needs to justify increasing profits...
    Do you think maybe you might feel differently if someone in your family was dying because they couldn't afford health insurance? You'd still argue for them making record profits, right? I bet not.
  20. #620  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I'm stil astounded that a business needs to justify increasing profits...
    I can think of a few overpaid management types that they could "downsize" to improve profits.

Posting Permissions