U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-09-2013, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,919 posts, read 19,098,824 times
Reputation: 9155

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandMike View Post
Nebraska Wendy's franchisee slashes worker hours to sidestep ObamaCare | Fox News

I am afraid this is what we expected from the Bill that Obama Signed into law. Mitt told us it was the #1 Job Killer. It's too bad it's hitting the lower income earners first. Wonder how these employees voted in Nov?
Does he know from personal experience? I mean, it is the same law he passed while governor of Massachusetts.

Oh, and just FYI, Suzy's solution would solve the problem. Having a system where your access to healthcare and health insurance is determined by your economic success is the absolute height of absurdity.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2013, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,310 posts, read 28,116,004 times
Reputation: 28800
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31st State Citizen View Post
Government force at the point of the gun is not the solution. Try freedom for a change.

Free markets work with iPads, cell phones, cars, and PCs.

Government union monopolies don't work at the DMV, Medicaid, Medicare, SS, public schools, etc.

Yet those who profess that they don't want the government to make any decisions regarding their bodies (i.e. abortion) want the government to make every single healthcare decision for them (including abortion).
The problem with health insurance is that there has to be some incentive for people to pay for coverage even when they perceive that they do not need it. Otherwise everyone could wait until a health problem pops up and then buy insurance.

You pay for automobile insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a wreck and then buy it. You pay for homeowners insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a fire to buy it.

People without insurance will still want to receive care. The only people who should be able to opt out are those that have resources to pay cash for care, and that is probably way less than 1% of us. Only the most wealthy could afford a $250,000 hospital bill.

Everyone should pay into the same insurance pool. That eliminates variable rates based on health. The young and healthy help pay for the old and sick. The young and healthy do so because they do sometimes get sick or injured and because they too eventually will become old. That is the basic concept behind insurance. The rates have to be set so that enough is added to the pot to offset was is paid out of it. Keep in mind that the country cannot pay for all the care everyone might ever want to have. That would eat up the entire GDP. So we have to determine what services will be covered and which will not. That is where the concept of rationing comes in. For example, we might say that one round of IVF for infertility will be covered but not six.

Free markets do not work with health care because when you are really sick or injured you do not have time to shop around. Making hospitals and doctors compete with one another just diverts money that could be spent on patient care to advertising and public relations frills.

A single payor system also would dramatically decrease the bureaucratic bloat in the system. Billing would be simplified, reducing the number of employees that are needed to process claims. It would also remove any justification for paying obscene amounts of money to insurance company CEOs.

Health care is not a gadget.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,919 posts, read 19,098,824 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The problem with health insurance is that there has to be some incentive for people to pay for coverage even when they perceive that they do not need it. Otherwise everyone could wait until a health problem pops up and then buy insurance.

You pay for automobile insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a wreck and then buy it. You pay for homeowners insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a fire to buy it.

People without insurance will still want to receive care. The only people who should be able to opt out are those that have resources to pay cash for care, and that is probably way less than 1% of us. Only the most wealthy could afford a $250,000 hospital bill.

Everyone should pay into the same insurance pool. That eliminates variable rates based on health. The young and healthy help pay for the old and sick. The young and healthy do so because they do sometimes get sick or injured and because they too eventually will become old. That is the basic concept behind insurance. The rates have to be set so that enough is added to the pot to offset was is paid out of it. Keep in mind that the country cannot pay for all the care everyone might ever want to have. That would eat up the entire GDP. So we have to determine what services will be covered and which will not. That is where the concept of rationing comes in. For example, we might say that one round of IVF for infertility will be covered but not six.

Free markets do not work with health care because when you are really sick or injured you do not have time to shop around. Making hospitals and doctors compete with one another just diverts money that could be spent on patient care to advertising and public relations frills.

A single payor system also would dramatically decrease the bureaucratic bloat in the system. Billing would be simplified, reducing the number of employees that are needed to process claims. It would also remove any justification for paying obscene amounts of money to insurance company CEOs.

Health care is not a gadget.
Further evidence of why Suzy is one of my favorite posters on this site.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,310 posts, read 28,116,004 times
Reputation: 28800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Further evidence of why Suzy is one of my favorite posters on this site.
Why thank you, kind sir!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
7,238 posts, read 6,435,487 times
Reputation: 8283
I'm going to take the socialist stand here... people should have a right to basic healthcare and a living wage... medical costs are out of control due to illegal immigrants not paying for ER care, greedy hospitals, and overpriced perscription drugs, among other things. Need medical reform to reduce costs and paperwork, need living wages too. This is not china.... people should not be expect to have to attend college or basically be destitute because the top wants their stock prices and earnings per share.

Need a weak dollar too.. weak dollar helps us stay competitive better rather than allow the top to gamble away our future with cheap debt. Basically we've sold our future away for short term gains with our strong dollar, low interest rates, easy credit environment. Everything goes overseas and we can't stay competitive or pay living wages because it's more competitive to do it elsewhere, in countries with 'weaker' currencies.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2013, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,340 posts, read 8,692,878 times
Reputation: 1215
Why is this here....?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2013, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,224 posts, read 1,410,455 times
Reputation: 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Having a system where your access to healthcare and health insurance is determined by your economic success is the absolute height of absurdity.
Capitalism is a system where your access to [anything that has a price] is determined by your economic success.

As a society, we can smooth the edges/ soften the limitations of capitalism, but unless you advocate abandoning the capitalist model, you will be bumping up against these realities time and again.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2013, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,224 posts, read 1,410,455 times
Reputation: 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You pay for automobile insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a wreck and then buy it. You pay for homeowners insurance every month. You do not wait until you have a fire to buy it.

People without insurance will still want to receive care.
...
Everyone should pay into the same insurance pool. That eliminates variable rates based on health. The young and healthy help pay for the old and sick. The young and healthy do so because they do sometimes get sick or injured and because they too eventually will become old. That is the basic concept behind insurance. The rates have to be set so that enough is added to the pot to offset was is paid out of it. Keep in mind that the country cannot pay for all the care everyone might ever want to have. That would eat up the entire GDP. So we have to determine what services will be covered and which will not. That is where the concept of rationing comes in. For example, we might say that one round of IVF for infertility will be covered but not six.

Free markets do not work with health care because when you are really sick or injured you do not have time to shop around.
...
Health insurance is not the same thing as health care. I have been saying this for so many years on these boards and others. I am refreshed to see this quote above.

Health insurance is INSURANCE. If we want to provide universal health insurance as a national goal, so be it. But providing health care is something else entirely. We do technically provide a basic level of health care now for the destitute: Medicaid.

Insurance is a market business, the concept is as old as money, and all insurance serves people with "something to lose." If you are destitute, you do not buy insurance. Why would you? Insurance protects assets.

One of the reasons I think we are in this health insurance crisis is that our middle class is vanishing. The people with assets in the 100K to 1M range are vanishing. In both directions. Some are becoming wealthy (over 1M assets) but most are simply losing their financial station. No savings, no pension, nothing to protect.

Health insurance is designed to protect you from losing your shirt (house/ 401(k)/ stocks & bonds) if you break a hip or worse. It seems to have morphed into something else in the last 20 years.

Health care is expensive; it will always be expensive -- lots of costly overhead; highly educated practioneers; expensive real estate. Everyone needs a little health care from time to time. Most cannot afford "extreme" care, but can afford basic care (with payments spread over a lifetime) and want to protect modest assets (less than $1M) from a "black swan" event (a weird cancer that costs two million to treat). These goals should be achievable by traditional health insurance.

Somehow, that simple health insurance goal has become over-run by demands for "free" health care, of almost unlimited scope, for all people dwelling in the US -- an obviously unaffordable prospect.

I feel we should differentiate "middle class health insurance" from the other movement toward some type of basic medical provision for all. The purposes are really quite different, and a regulated market should be able to cover the former. The latter should be handled as a Medicaid-type need, with tax welfare financing from all.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2013, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,310 posts, read 28,116,004 times
Reputation: 28800
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Health insurance is designed to protect you from losing your shirt (house/ 401(k)/ stocks & bonds) if you break a hip or worse. It seems to have morphed into something else in the last 20 years.
Thanks for the compliment!

There has indeed been a fundamental change in the attitude toward insurance in the last twenty to thirty years. The philosophy sounded good: instead of treating people after they get sick, let us see if we can prevent them from getting sick in the first place, so let's pay for preventative medical care.

Thirty years ago, insurance did not pay for outpatient care at all. Patients were admitted to the hospital for "tests" of all kinds, and if someone was told she needed a test, by golly she wanted to be in the hospital for it.

It seemed that it would be more cost effective to do testing as an outpatient, so the insurance companies began paying for outpatient testing.

Gradually, more and more coverage was demanded, and now we have a system that is designed to pay pretty near the first dollar of medical care rather than protecting against the economic effect of a catastrophic illness.

People want every office visit and every pill covered, and that is expensive. It's like having an automobile insurance policy that pays for gasoline and oil changes. And, by the way, people want to pay little or no deductible and the smallest copay possible, then wonder why premiums are so high.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top