Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 128
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    So if you think I shouldn't have to incur any "risk" related to healthcare because one of us might break a leg or have appendicitis... that's no different than retirement, cars, a place to live, etc. That's just how life is...
    All I can tell you is that I have a very different perspective...and it's a lot easier to dismiss having a possibly terminal disease in someone in your family that can't get treatment when it hasn't happened to you. Believe me....it's not the same as not having a car.
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    All I can tell you is that I have a very different perspective...and it's a lot easier to dismiss having a possibly terminal disease in someone in your family that can't get treatment when it hasn't happened to you. Believe me....it's not the same as not having a car.
    Wow, you guys covered a lot of ground in a day. I have a lot of reading to do.

    But, since we're speaking anecdotally, it's pretty difficult to watch a parent's disabilities get written off just because they're old. Much like the article above, we've spent a lot of money out of pocket for decent care. The difference is, this person has coverage. It's called Medicare.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    interesting....but of course very anecdotal. For instance, what happens if the patient has a complication and needs hospitalization?
    Right... I started with that. Insurance to cover emergencies and catastrophic events. And *that* insurance should covered from any company in any state.

    Actually, that could be based on state to state legislators, but you get the idea. The point is to increase competition, drive down overhead, maximize profits to those doing the actual work (the doctors), and making over healthcare more affordable. A win win I think.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Wow, you guys covered a lot of ground in a day. I have a lot of reading to do.

    But, since we're speaking anecdotally, it's pretty difficult to watch a parent's disabilities get written off just because they're old. Much like the article above, we've spent a lot of money out of pocket for decent care. The difference is, this person has coverage. It's called Medicare.
    Not sure what exactly you are referring to (about disabilities being written off), but as you know (because I've posted the reference a number of times) Medicare patients are more satisfied with their care than those who have private insurance. Are there people who are not satisfied? Sure. Just not as many.
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Most doctors would love to avoid dealing with insurance companies. So would most patients. They are inefficient and much of that money taken in goes to overhead, in spite of Clemgrad's explanation that all the costs are based on what the patient is billed by their provider. If that was the case, insurance companies wouldn't have record profits either. I'm all for throwing insurance companies under the bus. The worst thing about the health care law is that it actually would likely be a financial boon for insurance companies. That's the only reason I would favor rewriting it. As I've said many times before, I see no reason that an insurance company should make any profit from the healthcare system since they provide no direct care. Do away with insurance overhead and profit, the need for extra personnel to deal with insurance companies, and then watch how much money is saved. But of course that approach will not be palatable to those who are in the insurance business, even if combined with controlling provider charges. Right?
    First.....it was not my intent to say that insurance companies had no expenses. Obviously, there is overhead at an insurance company. But, the comment by "X" indicated that his belief was that because that procedure was $5-$8k, the insurance companies were making that money. That is extremely misleading because, as you know, the insurance companies pass premiums through their company to pay for what they are billed. And again, yes, they must deduct their overhead expenses which is a portion of premiums. Just like any business, they price their product (insurance) to cover their anticipated expenses (claims and overhead).

    Your explanation of how easy it would be to throw insurance companies out since they waste so much money is laughable since your option would be the ever efficient government? Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Medicare in the red? Medicare is either in the red because they don't bring in enough revenue, um, taxes...or....they are inefficient....or....both (likely both). But you see, our government can run in the red because we just borrow more money and keep acting as if nothing is wrong. We'll pay for that later, right? I don't know if you have any grandchildren, but I'm sure you don't have a problem with them being on the hook for it since you'll be long gone by then, right?

    As for your opinion that insurance companies shouldn't make a profit, well, we know you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree....but you aren't surprised, right? This all comes back to what people believe the government should and shouldn't be involved with based upon that pesky Constitution. Hey davidra....answer this question.....how come obama doesn't seem to want to let the Supreme Court judge on the health care issue ASAP? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? To settle this issue now? Or.....could he be concerned it might be ruled unconstitutional and by delaying that decision it gets too far along to stop? Couldn't be that, could it????
    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
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not sure what exactly you are referring to (about disabilities being written off), but as you know (because I've posted the reference a number of times) Medicare patients are more satisfied with their care than those who have private insurance. Are there people who are not satisfied? Sure. Just not as many.
    I guess it hasn't happened to you.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not sure what exactly you are referring to (about disabilities being written off), but as you know (because I've posted the reference a number of times) Medicare patients are more satisfied with their care than those who have private insurance. Are there people who are not satisfied? Sure. Just not as many.
    I tend to talk to people who are satisfied with their health insurance, especially after a large claim. It is VERY rare that after a large claim that I have a client say they are upset about how things were paid. As I've said before, most of the complaints I get are things that can be solved once we get the providers to process the claim correctly. Are there people who are not satisfied? Sure. But most of the time the dissatisfaction is directed at the wrong culprit.
    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
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Right... I started with that. Insurance to cover emergencies and catastrophic events. And *that* insurance should covered from any company in any state.

    Actually, that could be based on state to state legislators, but you get the idea. The point is to increase competition, drive down overhead, maximize profits to those doing the actual work (the doctors), and making over healthcare more affordable. A win win I think.
    OK...I think I agree in part, if you're saying that insurance should only be in the business of providing catastrophic and emergency care. That still leaves your run of the mill appendectomies and gallbladder procedures, and diagnostic testing for heart disease, and treatment of chronic disease, which is the largest portion of the health care bill after drug costs. Are you saying you want to pay for that by cash, or are you saying you favor a Medicare-like entity to fund that?
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I guess it hasn't happened to you.
    I wouldn't know. You haven't mentioned what you're talking about. Try me. Be specific. Are you complaining about the care your parent got from a physician, or the way it was handled by Medicare? You realize they are different, right?
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    All I can tell you is that I have a very different perspective...and it's a lot easier to dismiss having a possibly terminal disease in someone in your family that can't get treatment when it hasn't happened to you. Believe me....it's not the same as not having a car.
    I already told you that story about my Mom. Your sweeping generalities never seem to apply.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/08/2011 at 07:03 PM.
  11. #71  
    aww man not today tim lol your in cali. getting ready for the show !! lol let it go .
    ĦṔ-Ḷṫ-Ŧḯη
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/...octor_Versions
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    OK...I think I agree in part, if you're saying that insurance should only be in the business of providing catastrophic and emergency care.
    could, not should - people could still opt for more expensive plans if there's a market for them.
    That still leaves your run of the mill appendectomies and gallbladder procedures, and diagnostic testing for heart disease, and treatment of chronic disease, which is the largest portion of the health care bill after drug costs. Are you saying you want to pay for that by cash, or are you saying you favor a Medicare-like entity to fund that?
    Most of those would fall under insurance. I'm carving out the preventative stuff, the colds, sprains, minor breaks, non emergency tooth extractions, vision care, etc.

    As for cash, maybe that category could include HSA/HRA/FSA type accounts where you get tax breaks or deferrals for moneys you put up for the non emergency stuff... some companies could opt to pay into them as well as an employment perk/incentive.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    could, not should - people could still opt for more expensive plans if there's a market for them.
    Most of those would fall under insurance. I'm carving out the preventative stuff, the colds, sprains, minor breaks, non emergency tooth extractions, vision care, etc.

    As for cash, maybe that category could include HSA/HRA/FSA type accounts where you get tax breaks or deferrals for moneys you put up for the non emergency stuff... some companies could opt to pay into them as well as an employment perk/incentive.
    I am definitely in favor of multi-tier options for those that can afford them and want them. And I have no problem with insurance companies offering them and competing for those dollars....just as they now compete for Medicare add-on plans. Having people pay for visits for colds, etc, is fine too if the prices are reasonable. But the major thing you haven't addressed is chronic disease. And seeing as it accounts for 75% of expenditures, and most deaths, it is not to be ignored. And most of it can be prevented....with the right kind of expenditures. Your "model" doesn't tell me how Type 1 diabetics, or people with chronic lung disease, or kids with asthma, or those with heart disease will get care. Is that going to be insurance as well? If so, who's going to provide it and how much will it cost? And most importantly.....how will you make sure the 50 million people without insurance have it?

    chronic disease statistics
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I already told you that story about my Mom. Your sweeping generalities never seem to apply.
    I apologize for not remembering the details...but at the risk of being flamed, my "sweeping generalities" are based on first hand experience with many situations....not one. And if you are happy with the way your mom's situation turned out, and you don't think that having some kind of accessible care wouldn't have helped, then fine. Again, I'm sorry. I don't remember the pertinent details well enough to comment. What I do know is that watching someone you love die because they can't get the care they need is a horrible situation that should never happen in this country.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I am definitely in favor of multi-tier options for those that can afford them and want them. And I have no problem with insurance companies offering them and competing for those dollars....just as they now compete for Medicare add-on plans. Having people pay for visits for colds, etc, is fine too if the prices are reasonable. But the major thing you haven't addressed is chronic disease. And seeing as it accounts for 75% of expenditures, and most deaths, it is not to be ignored. And most of it can be prevented....with the right kind of expenditures. Your "model" doesn't tell me how Type 1 diabetics, or people with chronic lung disease, or kids with asthma, or those with heart disease will get care. Is that going to be insurance as well? If so, who's going to provide it and how much will it cost? And most importantly.....how will you make sure the 50 million people without insurance have it?

    chronic disease statistics
    Well, I think that's the point of this thread.... you can't mandate that they all must buy insurance. It's been ruled unconstitutional. And if you pull out the mandate, you have to pull the whole thing.

    It's just a matter of time before this thing gets completely repealed.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Well, I think that's the point of this thread.... you can't mandate that they all must buy insurance. It's been ruled unconstitutional. And if you pull out the mandate, you have to pull the whole thing.

    It's just a matter of time before this thing gets completely repealed.
    And exactly how does that solve our problems? Or do you care?
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And exactly how does that solve our problems? Or do you care?
    If a homeless person steals because he or she is hungry, should that person be held accountable, or overlooked because of their circumstances? Some people, would actually say it should be overlooked.

    The reason I ask this is because it's as if you feel that even if a law is unconstitutional (which I know, you don't feel the mandate is, but apparently a large percentage of people do) it's okay to allow that law as long as it meets a greater good. In other words, if you did believe it was unconstitutional to force a person to buy a product (health coverage), would you still say it was okay since it accomplished an ideal that you believed in?

    Do you at least understand that some people believe the Constitution is what our country is founded on and these people believe it should be up held? Do you feel these people are bad people who are anti-American?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

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

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    If a homeless person steals because he or she is hungry, should that person be held accountable, or overlooked because of their circumstances? Some people, would actually say it should be overlooked.

    The reason I ask this is because it's as if you feel that even if a law is unconstitutional (which I know, you don't feel the mandate is, but apparently a large percentage of people do) it's okay to allow that law as long as it meets a greater good. In other words, if you did believe it was unconstitutional to force a person to buy a product (health coverage), would you still say it was okay since it accomplished an ideal that you believed in?

    Do you at least understand that some people believe the Constitution is what our country is founded on and these people believe it should be up held? Do you feel these people are bad people who are anti-American?
    Do you realize that more judges have ruled it constitutional than have ruled it unconstitutional?

    No, I don't believe they are anti-American. I just think they don't really care about people who don't have insurance. I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise, as there have been no answers to the simple question: how will you provide care for people without insurance? You think I care if there's a mandate or not? I don't. All I care about is that people get the care they need. Very simple.
  19.    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you realize that more judges have ruled it constitutional than have ruled it unconstitutional?

    No, I don't believe they are anti-American. I just think they don't really care about people who don't have insurance. I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise, as there have been no answers to the simple question: how will you provide care for people without insurance? You think I care if there's a mandate or not? I don't. All I care about is that people get the care they need. Very simple.
    Exactly what I thought, you are not interested in the law but simply getting what you want. Now that I have finally been able to determine that, there is absolutely no way you and I can ever be on the same page. You feel laws or rules can be broken to meet your objectives....and I simply can't go along with that.

    I've told you sooooo many times that it appears the States could require their citizens to get health insurance. That, would not violate the Constitution. Maybe it would violate the Constitution of some States, but they could more easily change their own State Constitution than we could ammend the Federal Constitution. Of course, your answer to that is normally that you don't think States are capable of handling this. So, this would be one step towards getting people insured and not violate the Constitution. That objection would be gone!

    I've also told you sooooooo many times that I would not object to a State monitored tax that EVERYONE participated in and that would help some people afford premiums. This could be something like a gas tax, where maybe everyone paid 5 cents a gallon that went towards reimbursing a portion of one's health premium based on your level of income. True, not everyone owns a car and therefore doesn't buy gas, but, I think a vast majority of people would be participating.

    So, despite your best efforts to say we don't care, it's just that we (well me) also care about following the Constitution. These are just 2 things that could be done to get health care reform going in the RIGHT direction. Mix in tort reform, maybe allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines, and we could actually get those people you want covered, covered....and....address these outrageous charges that doctors and hospitals charge.

    Oh, davidra....you never commented on the $5000 to $8000 x-ray and cast. Does your emergency room charge that much? Please bring your experience and knowledge into this and please tell me that was an outrageous example.
    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.    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you realize that more judges have ruled it constitutional than have ruled it unconstitutional?
    That is really not true.....what some judges have done is throw out cases that have no merit. These were basically silly lawsuits that in some cases I agreed with them being thrown out. But, if obama doesn't somehow block this from getting to the Supreme Court, I think you will find it will be 5-4 one way or the other. Whichever way it goes, one vote will likely decide it. Does that make it wrong? Not according to the Constituion. You see.....elections have consequences. And obama got to appoint some liberals to the bench....it's the way it goes....and his way of putting his liberal "stamp" on the court (of course, it didn't hurt that he had the Senate in his back pocket!).
    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
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions