Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2013, 08:45 AM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,100,383 times
Reputation: 4228

Advertisements

It's funny. After posting yesterday, and in the past about the banks, I get a phone call from a collections company trying to collect a fraudulent debt.

Not gonna mention the banks name because I don't know if they were even aware, but its beginning to get on my nerves. I work damn hard for my money and refuse to give it away to bankers or rig job collections agents sitting on their ass all day.



There'd be a lot more "job creators" and entrepreneurs if there was actually money circulating to invest and less predators out there robbing people of their hard earned money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2013, 08:47 AM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,100,383 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen View Post
Because the elite majority shareholders on the boards of these companies along with the CEOs like their lavish lifestyles. $20 million a year is not enough for them.
That's just wasteful IMO. I've projected the numbers and that's just an absurd statement. Those individuals would be classified as "thirsty" or "greedy." I don't believe in a cap on income, but I do believe that it should be EARNED. There's very few individuals who EARN that type of money. There's a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 09:04 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,239,242 times
Reputation: 3444
[quote=bUU;29558404]Maybe it is. Ask the previous poster who suggested it. I simply see no systemic harm from making health insurance companies not-for-profit.[quote]

Except private insurance offers better outcomes than government insurance. Prove insurance companies are bad or that they are driving costs.

Primary payer status is associated with mortalit... [Circulation. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Primary payer status affects mortality for major su... [Ann Surg. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Primary payer status affects outcomes for car... [J Am Coll Surg. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured and Medicaid payer status is associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality and morbidity among patients undergoing cardiac valve operations compared with Medicare and private insurance. In addition, Medicaid patients accrued the longest hospital stays and highest total costs. Primary payer status should be considered as an independent risk factor during preoperative risk stratification and planning.
ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die as those with private insurance; their hospital stays were 42% longer, and cost 26% more. Compared to those without health insurance, Medicaid patients were 13% more likely to die, stayed in the hospital for 50% longer, and cost 20% more.


Quote:
Results: Unadjusted mortality for Medicare (4.4%, OR= 3.51), Medicaid (3.7%, OR: 2.86) and Uninsured (3.2%, OR: 2.51) patient groups were higher compared to Private Insurance groups (1.3%, p<0.001). Moreover, mortality was lowest for Private Insurance patients independent of operation. Importantly, after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs (p<0.001). In addition, Medicaid (p<0.001) and Uninsured (p<0.001) payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality (Table 1).

Conclusions:
Medicaid and Uninsured payer status confers increased risk of adjusted mortality. Medicaid was further associated with the greatest adjusted length of stay and total costs despite risk factors or operation. Possible explanations include delays in access to care or disparate differences in health maintenance.
No systematic harm, eh?

Quote:
Do you actually read the messages you replied to? It seems not, but that's pretty typical for responses to my postings from you... perhaps what happens in that you see my user name and your eyes foam up?
I try to dispel ignorance any time I can. You should see me criticize the anti abortion folks on the abortion threads.

Quote:
Which has nothing to do with addressing the actual problem, that being the affordability of this basic essential of life by all. But please don't let us moral folks who actually care about other people get in the way of your attempt to distract attention from the core point to feed your own excessively-exploitative political perspective.
It has everything to do with affordability. Insurance companies do not delivery health care. Take away all the insurance companies in the world and the cost of health care remains controlled by monopolies. Your healthcare system has become more monopolistic over time as your other industries have become more competitive.

You probably want to blame the insurance companies don't you? Well don't, the American Hospital Association wrecked your healthcare system. When you stifle competition the prices will rise, this is a basic economic fact.

Nonmember/out of network fees? Thank the AHA.
Insurance tied to your employer? Thank the AHA
Who wrote most of ObamaCare? The AHA
Who is buying up doctor offices? Hospitals
Who lobbies state legislatures for enabling laws? The AHA
Who lobbied for regulations that outlaw specialized clinics? Thank the AHA

Let/allow/force insurance companies to compete across state lines and you can see a reduction in premiums, but outside of that piece of legislation the insurance companies aren't driving costs.

Don't believe me?

Quote:
But Phoebe and the others claimed that that Georgia's Hospital Authorities Law permits the acquisition and operation of health care networks, even when such constructions result in monopolies. Finding that the law gave broad powers to the authorities, and that legislators must have expected such powers would result in monopolies, a federal judge dismissed the FTC's complaint with prejudice. The 11th Circuit affirmed in December 2011. "Foreseeably, acquisitions could consolidate ownership of competing hospitals, eliminating competition between them," the Atlanta-based appellate court said.
Courthouse News Service
Lawsuit claims hospital monopoly meant higher prices for patients
The Monopoly of Hospital Appointments
Hospital Competition and Patient Outcomes
https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...e179f16fac4fcd
Monopolies Threaten Health Care Cost Controls
Hospitals Are Going On A Doctor Buying Binge, And It Is Likely To End Badly - Forbes
https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...3b5ec1a0d05bab
Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform » Do We Need More Competition from Health Plans or Hospitals?
Size Matters: Hospital Consolidation and Physicians | The Health Care Blog
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 09:09 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,679,221 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Except private insurance offers better outcomes than government insurance.
Then ensure that everyone can afford private insurance, since folks who can afford better insurance aren't better human beings, more deserving of this basic essential of life. If you can't, then your premise fails - it's not a better outcome if only the rich people can enjoy it.

There's nothing wrong with having a single payer system that provides for all, while still allowing rich people to go outside the system for their care, even though they're paying into the system. They can afford it, and it actually relieves the system of some of the burden.

Regardless, you're working so very hard to avoid the point. It must really strike a nerve to have something you support so badly repudiated as being immoral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 09:38 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,239,242 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Then ensure that everyone can afford private insurance, since folks who can afford better insurance aren't better human beings, more deserving of this basic essential of life. If you can't, then your premise fails - it's not a better outcome if only the rich people can enjoy it.

There's nothing wrong with having a single payer system that provides for all, while still allowing rich people to go outside the system for their care, even though they're paying into the system. They can afford it, and it actually relieves the system of some of the burden.

Regardless, you're working so very hard to avoid the point. It must really strike a nerve to have something you support so badly repudiated as being immoral.
What do you think I'm trying to do? I write my legislators. I oppose laws. I try to get them to repeal laws that stifle competition. I wrote over 20 letters explaining how and why Obamacare will fail. I sent letters to the DOJ pointing out hospital monopolies. I've advocated for specialized clinics. I've supported lower regulations. I tried to support giving nurses more autonomy. Nothing is working, my voice is silent.

What more could I possibly do? I simply cannot compete with the lobbyists that the AHA has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 09:54 AM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,100,383 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
What do you think I'm trying to do? I write my legislators. I oppose laws. I try to get them to repeal laws that stifle competition. I wrote over 20 letters explaining how and why Obamacare will fail. I sent letters to the DOJ pointing out hospital monopolies. I've advocated for specialized clinics. I've supported lower regulations. I tried to support giving nurses more autonomy. Nothing is working, my voice is silent.

What more could I possibly do? I simply cannot compete with the lobbyists that the AHA has.
It sounds like you've done A LOT and I applaud you for your efforts. It does seem that our voices have gone silent in this country. You can't compete with lobbyist or corporate interest. It's all about the money and where it goes.



I'm self-employed, stable, and optimistic about MY future, but there have to be some very fundamental shifts in this country in order for things to get batter on the macro level.

Partisanship in this country is cancer and the media outlets are all controlled by largely by people who don't have the public's best interest at heart.


I despise the way some people blindly follow politicians without critically thinking about the issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 12:02 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You do know that Universal Healthcare can actually have options with different types of packages.
if the government allows it.

Quote:
Having the employers take the brunt of health insurance doesn't work and all it does is add cost to employers. Even if you got rid of all the regulations, health insurance would still be costly for the employer, unless of course you got rid of regulations so that employers didn't need to provide insurance. Then you would just have an increase of working Americans without health insurance.
first the cost of health insurance plans can be born equally between the employer and employee. second when you add regulations, you add cost, which mean the health insurance companies have to pay out more on claims, which means premiums go up, which means everyone pays more. it becomes a vicious cycle of ever increasing costs. if we eliminate the unnecessary regulations, everything from the huge number of codes for what kind of care was given, to was is required care, etc. you will find that costs will fall dramatically, including insurance premiums. and perhaps we can get back to a time when you bought health insurance to cover catastrophic care, and paid the doctor for office visits.

and if we allow insurance companies to taylor their plans to what the consumer needs instead of what the government thinks everyone needs, costs can come down even further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
That's funny. I want the for-profit health insurance companies out of our healthcare. Think how much we would all save if we didn't have insurance companies sucking up billions of healthcare dollars.

Health care should be thought of as more of a utility than a consumer good. Because it's not a consumer good. I can decide whether or not to buy a car, or a phone, or even some food products. But I can't choose whether or not to be sick. It's time we stopped treating healthcare as a consumer product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Are you kidding me? Healthcare insurance companies don't make profits? Their CEOs and top executives don't make millions of dollars that would be better spent on actual HEALTH CARE?!


Hundreds of millions of America's health care dollars have gone to health care insurance companies throughout the years. And do you know how much of that money went to actual HEALTH CARE?---zero.
About 30 % of the for-profit health insurance company costs are over-head. In contrast, the overhead to operate Medicare is 3 %. Think about it. I can assure you that no one who is running Medicare or Medicaid is making $13 million a year.

Too many Americans have bought into the corporate view of medical care as a for-profit consumer good, so that we can't even see how wrong that view is.




http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...o-12-9-million
you do realize that before obamacare, insurance companies were required to pay out a minimum of 65% of insurance premium dollars on claims right? as i have said before, get rid of the excessive regulations, and get government out of the way, and health care costs, and thus health insurance premiums, will come down substantially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
employers are going to find a way to cut costs to the bone whether or not government increases their cost of doing business. it is a moot point... profit is their goal under any regulatory scheme.
you wouldnt kid me would you? my point was that when you increase regulations, you increase the cost of doing business, and that leads to lack of job growth. and while big business isnt as hurt by regulation, small businesses are. increase the cost of doing business by $10,000 per year and big business shrugs it off, but small businesses eliminate an employee, or at least cut way back on their hours. and while profit is the goal of business, and i have made no bones about that, understand that when profits are rolling in for a business, they tend to maintain or increase their business. when profits are down, they shrink, especially small business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 12:10 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,413,874 times
Reputation: 1179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post

There'd be a lot more "job creators" and entrepreneurs if there was actually money circulating to invest and less predators out there robbing people of their hard earned money.
Yep, like this government who demands higher and higher taxes. Instead of the money circulating through the economy it goes straight to the government coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 12:38 PM
 
3,537 posts, read 2,730,466 times
Reputation: 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
That's just wasteful IMO. I've projected the numbers and that's just an absurd statement. Those individuals would be classified as "thirsty" or "greedy." I don't believe in a cap on income, but I do believe that it should be EARNED. There's very few individuals who EARN that type of money. There's a difference.
I concur. You cannot put a cap on their bonuses but it should be earned.
Very few of these CEO's with Golden parachutes earn anything close to their rediculous bonuses.

In a big general picture why does my wife who saves lives in the caridiac cath lab earn 5-10 times less than her sister who is some slimey attorney making millionaires and billionaires wealthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 12:39 PM
 
17,389 posts, read 11,938,010 times
Reputation: 16137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
It is pretty obvious that the Bush and Obama Administrations have been very kind to big business interests. TARP, low tax rates, low interest rates,etc. Why don't businesses want to hire people in the country that saved their asses?

Simple question. Discuss.
One word: OBAMACARE
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top