Page 6 of 37 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 726
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    My point stands--did Gingrich get one?
    Not that I'm aware of, but I don't follow Gingrich. Never liked him much, personally.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    where is the poll question that asks' "do you think the government can improve the costs for our healthcare system?" and "do you think the government should be the one to try to fix the high costs of healthcare?"

    pretty sure most would say "no"

    that's why polls are so misleading.
    And yet veterans, senior citizens, and the politicians in Washington, the only ones in a position to judge how well government can run healthcare insurance, wouldn't give up their government-run health insurance without a fight, which is why the Republicans choose to omit any discussion of these government-run programs, which are massive, and which work.

    As has been pointed out, Mitt Romney, Mr. Free Market, implemented Romneycare when he was governor of Massachusetts--and the sky didn't fall.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    And yet veterans, senior citizens, and the politicians in Washington, the only ones in a position to judge how well government can run healthcare insurance, wouldn't give up their government-run health insurance without a fight, which is why the Republicans choose to omit any discussion of these government-run programs, which are massive, and which work.

    As has been pointed out, Mitt Romney, Mr. Free Market, implemented Romneycare when he was governor of Massachusetts--and the sky didn't fall.
    Umm, I'm not sure "the sky didn't fall" is exactly what the American people were looking for. And you keep pushing Romney out there like he's supposed to be a good example? Did you vote for him or something?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by foosball View Post
    Actually, the book is about economics and how it ties into health policy. Good read. I recommend it.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    And yet veterans, senior citizens, and the politicians in Washington, the only ones in a position to judge how well government can run healthcare insurance, wouldn't give up their government-run health insurance without a fight, which is why the Republicans choose to omit any discussion of these government-run programs, which are massive, and which work.

    As has been pointed out, Mitt Romney, Mr. Free Market, implemented Romneycare when he was governor of Massachusetts--and the sky didn't fall.
    leave out veterans as it is not related. but if you asked congress to fund what they have out of their own pocket... they might have a different view.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Umm, I'm not sure "the sky didn't fall" is exactly what the American people were looking for. And you keep pushing Romney out there like he's supposed to be a good example? Did you vote for him or something?
    Nope, just saying that a prominent GOP member with a lot of conservative credentials on both the social and economic fronts saw the wisdom of a government/private-sector partnership in dealing with the healthcare problem and made it happen. But when a virtually identical plan passes Congress after a year of deliberations and compromises people talk like Vladimir Lenin is running the U.S. Pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    leave out veterans as it is not related. but if you asked congress to fund what they have out of their own pocket... they might have a different view.
    Why is government healthcare for veterans--including inexpensive prescriptions--not related?
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Why is government healthcare for veterans--including inexpensive prescriptions--not related?
    because they should have the best this country can offer without regard to the cost. it is a benefit, not an entitlement (they earned it).

    everyone else has to make things work without borrowing money. and this country is borrowing money for wars and healthcare at an unsustainable rate.

    I want the veterans to have what they earned through their service. congress? not so much and only if they can afford it.

    if the congressional plan is so wonderful, why don't they propose that for the rest of us? answer? it's waaaaayyyy more expensive than what obamacare will be...

    I hope that clears up my post about veterans care
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 09/27/2010 at 05:09 PM.
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    The "policies on children" thing is a red herring, as they represent a tiny fraction of policies. I sure as hell don't know anybody who has one, do you? Why would anybody get a policy on their kid only when they could get it on themselves and their kid for way less than twice the kid alone premium would be?
    Actually.....policies on just children were quite common. I'll give you just one example. Let's say the cost for a parent on their group plan to add children coverage (key word, children, plural) was $500. Now, if you had 3 children, maybe not a bad deal right? But what if you had just one child? Is it a good deal to pay $500 when you could have gone out and bought an individual child policy for $140?. Do the math. Want another reason? Okay. How about an employer that offers a plan to their employees with a $2500 deductible, but the parent wants a lower deductible for their child? The solution? Get a child only individual plan that offers a lower deductible and coverage to cover children's shots and those more common sick visits that young children have. I'll even give you an example involving individual policies. I have some clients who wanted an HSA plan on themselves to keep their premiums down (both parents are in good health and could afford to meet the higher deductible if something major happened) but wanted a different plan on their children for those more common visits to the doctor that children have. So to say these are not common just shows you really don't know what you are talking about....sorry to put it that way, but you don't know jack

    You see....this is what is frustrating....I know the health insurance biz....and the examples I give are what I see, I don't make these up. I don't question davidra on a medical issue. If davidra says procedure XYZ is a good procedure, I would have to defer to him because he is a doctor. I deal in this stuff on a daily basis and I talk to people regarding their health insurance coverage. So children only policies were a very nice way for many families to cut their costs....until.....obama care kicked in and really took these options away from families.
    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.    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    because they should have the best this country can offer without regard to the cost. it is a benefit, not an entitlement (they earned it).

    everyone else has to make things work without borrowing money. and this country is borrowing money for wars and healthcare at an unsustainable rate.

    I want the veterans to have what they earned through their service. congress? not so much and only if they can afford it.

    if the congressional plan is so wonderful, why don't they propose that for the rest of us? answer? it's waaaaayyyy more expensive than what obamacare will be...

    I hope that clears up my post about veterans care
    Non sequitur much? The point isn't whether or not they deserve it. The point is that it is government managed, organized and funded health care....and it is excellent care and very reasonably priced. Drug costs are controlled as well, unlike the Medicare handout the republicans gave to the drug companies. Medicare recipients also are not about to give up their high quality care that allows them choice in providers. Now will you agree that government managed health care is high quality? Since Medicare recipients give it higher positive ratings than private insurance, you might want to think about it.
  11.    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I deal in this stuff on a daily basis and I talk to people regarding their health insurance coverage. So children only policies were a very nice way for many families to cut their costs....until.....obama care kicked in and really took these options away from families.
    You are correct, I wouldn't begin to argue with you about details of policies. Just about your conclusion that health care reform took these options away. Don't deflect. The health insurance for-profit company took that option away. Why? Because it would cut into their profits. Do you deny that? So it's a pretty easy equation, really. Profits vs. care for children. And it's also pretty easy to see what side you favor.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Non sequitur much? The point isn't whether or not they deserve it. The point is that it is government managed, organized and funded health care....and it is excellent care and very reasonably priced. Drug costs are controlled as well, unlike the Medicare handout the republicans gave to the drug companies. Medicare recipients also are not about to give up their high quality care that allows them choice in providers. Now will you agree that government managed health care is high quality? Since Medicare recipients give it higher positive ratings than private insurance, you might want to think about it.
    would you like to provide data showing that veteran healthcare costs are reasonable? Right after you connect the term 'quality' with 'walter reed hospital...

    you missed the point which was: if you look at current govt health care (ignoring veterans programs for a moment) it will be hard to argue that they are cost effective or controlling cost.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by foosball View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stung View Post
    Actually, the book is about economics and how it ties into health policy. Good read. I recommend it.
    Does universal health care lead to Hayek's economic 'road to serfdom'? I think not.

    Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia have both universal health care AND the highest levels of economic freedom and opportunity in the world (more than the United States)*.

    If you want another example, Denmark (with government revenues above 50% of GNP, an extensive social welfare state, and free high quality government sponsored health care) ranks roughly the same as the US in its economic freedom and opportunity*.

    *2010 Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/27/2010 at 07:44 PM.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You are correct, I wouldn't begin to argue with you about details of policies. Just about your conclusion that health care reform took these options away. Don't deflect. The health insurance for-profit company took that option away. Why? Because it would cut into their profits. Do you deny that? So it's a pretty easy equation, really. Profits vs. care for children. And it's also pretty easy to see what side you favor.
    Well....you've called me a racist and now I apparently want to kill or harm children. I know you don't particularly like me....but holy cow. LOL Anyway, all I know good doctor is that before Sept 23rd, I could get an individual policy on the vast majority of children but after that date, when the requirements of the obama bill kicked in, I couldn't get a child policy on any children regardless of their health. Is it because of profit that insurance companies had to temporarily stop issuing such policies? You bet. But tell me.....if obama is such a smart guy, and such a caring guy, don't you think he had a discussion with his "experts" on the potential negatives of this part of the bill? Either his "experts" are really stupid and said "there is nothing negative here, insurance companies will have to cover all children, we have done it!"....or....they said "well, they will likely stop issuing policies on all children." So, if it was the latter than who is really uncaring? If you believe it was the former, than maybe obama needs to get some smarter advisors around him. Do you think they really didn't see this coming? What could possibly be the reason for this "unexpected" situation? I actually believe this will just be temporary, the not covering of children, but, they will need to get coverage under a parent's plan and the rates will go up. Before BC/BS cancelled issuing policies here in SC, I had heard from an "inside sourse" that they would likely immediately increase rates by 12%...as a start. In addition, I think they will be able to rate up policies on children with health issues. So, the coverage will be available if they can afford an even higher premium. And remember, that 12% would be increased on even the healthy children. It's just like how credit card companies raised the interest rates and stop handing out credit cards to everyone (that is probably a good thing) when they were required by the government to get rid of certain fees. My interest rate went up even though I pay my credit card off each month and never had those fees...so...doesn't really hurt me but I'm sure it is affecting a good number of people. Yes....the government at it's finest!
    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.    #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....you've called me a racist and now I apparently want to kill or harm children. I know you don't particularly like me....but holy cow. LOL Anyway, all I know good doctor is that before Sept 23rd, I could get an individual policy on the vast majority of children but after that date, when the requirements of the obama bill kicked in, I couldn't get a child policy on any children regardless of their health. Is it because of profit that insurance companies had to temporarily stop issuing such policies? You bet. But tell me.....if obama is such a smart guy, and such a caring guy, don't you think he had a discussion with his "experts" on the potential negatives of this part of the bill? Either his "experts" are really stupid and said "there is nothing negative here, insurance companies will have to cover all children, we have done it!"....or....they said "well, they will likely stop issuing policies on all children." So, if it was the latter than who is really uncaring? If you believe it was the former, than maybe obama needs to get some smarter advisors around him. Do you think they really didn't see this coming? What could possibly be the reason for this "unexpected" situation? I actually believe this will just be temporary, the not covering of children, but, they will need to get coverage under a parent's plan and the rates will go up. Before BC/BS cancelled issuing policies here in SC, I had heard from an "inside sourse" that they would likely immediately increase rates by 12%...as a start. In addition, I think they will be able to rate up policies on children with health issues. So, the coverage will be available if they can afford an even higher premium. And remember, that 12% would be increased on even the healthy children. It's just like how credit card companies raised the interest rates and stop handing out credit cards to everyone (that is probably a good thing) when they were required by the government to get rid of certain fees. My interest rate went up even though I pay my credit card off each month and never had those fees...so...doesn't really hurt me but I'm sure it is affecting a good number of people. Yes....the government at it's finest!
    Clearly, it's hopeless to discuss this with you. You act as if Obama is making insurance companies jack their rates up or cancel their writing policies. Do you just totally ignore the responsibility of the insurance companies in this situation? You admit their actions are solely due to profits. Is that the kind of behavior you favor? The whole purpose of insurance reform is to stop cherry-picking...and this is a classic example of that. Yes...the benevolent caring health insurance industry. They really care about the health of the population. That's why it should be totally removed from their stockholders. I sincerely hope every company that denies writing policies like this will be excluded from any exchanges and is forced out of the business of health insurance.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    It's just like how credit card companies raised the interest rates and stop handing out credit cards to everyone (that is probably a good thing) when they were required by the government to get rid of certain fees. My interest rate went up even though I pay my credit card off each month and never had those fees...so...doesn't really hurt me but I'm sure it is affecting a good number of people. Yes....the government at it's finest!
    My card rates stayed the same.. one of them even increased my credit limit without request... And I've actually been receiving MORE offers to hand cards to me... Maybe it's because I'm one of the few people that's actually responsible with my credit and have a really high credit score?

    Too bad those same rules don't apply to health insurance huh? I have yet to actually make use of my health insurance for all the years I've had it but the rates just keep going up every year.
  17.    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    would you like to provide data showing that veteran healthcare costs are reasonable? Right after you connect the term 'quality' with 'walter reed hospital...

    you missed the point which was: if you look at current govt health care (ignoring veterans programs for a moment) it will be hard to argue that they are cost effective or controlling cost.
    No problem. Let's start with quality:

    The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.
    It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.
    Not convinced? Consider what vets themselves think. Sure, it's not hard to find vets who complain about difficulties in establishing eligibility. Many are outraged that the Bush administration has decided to deny previously promised health-care benefits to veterans who don't have service-related illnesses or who can't meet a strict means test. Yet these grievances are about access to the system, not about the quality of care received by those who get in. Veterans groups tenaciously defend the VHA and applaud its turnaround. "The quality of care is outstanding," says Peter Gayton, deputy director for veterans affairs and rehabilitation at the American Legion. In the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
    Feel free to try this link as well:

    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME

    There are not many comparisons of costs, because of the VA population that uses VA as well as non-VA services. However, what has been studied suggests VA costs are lower than Medicare and lower than private care.

    B6. How do VA costs compare to the cost of non-VA providers?

    Reasons to compare VA costs
    There are a number of reasons to compare the cost of VA care to the costs of other providers. VA users often obtain additional care outside the VA system through Medicare, Medicaid, or other forms of insurance. This “dual use” is particularly common among veterans eligible for Medicare. A natural question, therefore, is how VA costs compare to those of Medicare-funded services. Policy makers are also interested in learning whether it is more efficient for VA to make or buy the health care services that it provides to veterans, and whether VA is operating as efficiently as non-VA hospitals.
    Comparison of VA Cost to Medicare Reimbursement
    The most thorough study comparing the relative cost of VA provided care was an HSR&D study that compared actual VA costs at six VA medical centers to the hypothetical fee-for-service payments for the same services that would have been paid by Medicare. The final report (Nugent, 2004) found that VA was providing care at a lower cost. Details from this study appeared as a series of papers in a special supplement of Medical Care in 2003. The overview paper for the papers in this supplement is cited below (Nugent, 2003). The supplement includes papers with detailed comparisons for difference services, including acute hospital stays, outpatient care, nursing home, and other types of care.
    Evaluation of VA Pharmacy Costs
    It has been estimated that VA’s Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM) program saved VA $1.5 billion between 1995 and 1999 (Sales, 2005). VA prices for 20 medications commonly used by seniors are lower even than those negotiated by private PBM companies for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Families USA, 2005).
    Other Comparisons of VA Costs
    A review of the literature comparing VA to non-VA costs (Hendricks, 1999) found no evidence that VA costs were higher than the private sector. Most studies have noted the difficulty in comparing costs between systems in which the patients served and the scope of services provided are so different. fferent.
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, yeah. Decades. Do you really want to take a look at the graphs of what happened to jobs and the stock market from the passage of leadership from Clinton to Bush? Really? Those Bush tax cuts really helped a lot.
    Ever hear of the dot-com bubble? It started to collapse in early 2000 and was well underway before the election.

    IMHO, this had more to do with the financial crisis and housing collapse than any of the wars.
    FRONTLINE: the warning | PBS
  19.    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by hrminer92 View Post
    Ever hear of the dot-com bubble? It started to collapse in early 2000 and was well underway before the election.

    IMHO, this had more to do with the financial crisis and housing collapse than any of the wars.
    FRONTLINE: the warning | PBS
    There is no question that the casino-like mentality of Wall Street and the lack of regulation was a major contributor....but you can't ignore the effect of a trillion dollar expenditure that was NOT paid for. Don't you think we might be slightly better off with an extra trillion dollars?
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by hrminer92 View Post
    Ever hear of the dot-com bubble? It started to collapse in early 2000 and was well underway before the election.

    IMHO, this had more to do with the financial crisis and housing collapse than any of the wars.
    FRONTLINE: the warning | PBS
    Internal economy yes. But the wars are what put us into such horrible debt making it harder for us in the long run. Even despite failings of the government to deal with the warning signs of those sectors' impending collapse we'd still have been better off managing them if we hadn't piled on debt from two different, concurrent wars, only one of which actually had real justification.

Posting Permissions