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 05-11-2009, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,165 posts, read 26,122,269 times
Reputation: 27898

Advertisements

Give us a hint GD.What range of premium decrease is being projected?

I hope that this substantial decrease is not going to be the paltry 1 1/2 % that I saw mentioned elsewhere and that the proposals for stemming the increases in the future is not the relief being hoped for.
You do know that if everyone is not made to participate, that a large part of the reason for it to be so high will continue....both due to paying insureds also footing part of the cost of uninsureds and/or taxes to do so.
This kind of action, along with how Medicare is being run, TM, is why I do not trust this government to be in charge.
BTW....since eminent domain is a process by which the government can take private property from a private entity unwilling to sell it.......and all those greedy capitalistic corporate fat cats love money...do you think they wouldn't sell whatever health facilities the gov't wanted to buy?
Either you misunderstood GD or he was injecting the idea just to support some arguement at the time.(Not that he would do that!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2009, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Give us a hint GD.What range of premium decrease is being projected?

I hope that this substantial decrease is not going to be the paltry 1 1/2 % that I saw mentioned elsewhere and that the proposals for stemming the increases in the future is not the relief being hoped for.
I believe that 1.5 percent was referencing the rate of increase in costs, per year, over the next 5 years. Costs will continue to grow (salaries, payouts to Drs, research etc) but, if you can keep a cap on how much, you can better deal with premiums.

We saw various estimates on premium declines - ranging from an immediate 10 to 12% to as high as 25% decline - depended upon the modeling that was used. Unlike what TM tries to portray, spreading the risk pool over state lines is significant in reducing premiums. AND, by reducing the number of regulatory agencies insurance companies have to work with to ONE, versus more than 50, overhead costs are reduced SUBSTANTIALLY in this one area alone.

You asked a good question - and I cannot give you an exact answer except to say - you will see reduced premiums. AND, if your financial situation is such that you still have problems financially getting insurance, there will be some subsidies out there to help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
BTW....since eminent domain is a process by which the government can take private property from a private entity unwilling to sell it.......and all those greedy capitalistic corporate fat cats love money...do you think they wouldn't sell whatever health facilities the gov't wanted to buy?
Either you misunderstood GD or he was injecting the idea just to support some arguement at the time.(Not that he would do that!)
At one time, TM and her alter ego GEEREO, were 1000% behind a completely government run health care system in the US (GEEREO still does). The Eminent Domain discussion (which TM continues to distort) related to the FACT that if the US were to take over the health care delivery system, as TM wanted at the time, the government would have had to purchase every insurance company, every hospital, every clinic, every union contract etc.

The cost would have been mind boggling - it would have may this financial bailout we are in now look pale by comparison.

Clearly, TM does not understand the concept of Eminent Domain.

Hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,165 posts, read 26,122,269 times
Reputation: 27898
[quote=Greatday;8755496]

You asked a good question - and I cannot give you an exact answer except to say - you will see reduced premiums. AND, if your financial situation is such that you still have problems financially getting insurance, there will be some subsidies out there to help.[/quote]

I am going to seriously doubt this in cases like mine and millions of others because we CAN and DO 'afford' the premiums because we set insurance as a priority even when it hurts, unlike so many others who feel a new or newer car,clothes from someplace other than the thrift store and housing in a nicer area is more important.
Even though it isn't considered an official medical expense, we include in our 'health budget' to go south in the winter because my husband would be pretty much confined to the house from Nov to May (thereabouts) otherwise.
It's pretty sad that 4/6 months in Fl costs us much less than our "free" ( as so many think Medicare is) government provided health care.
The fact that being under the gov't healthcare umbrella costs us so much....as much as our last paid out-of-pocket private insurance....... is another thing I have pointed out numerous times to proponents of it but it keeps getting ignored

Jus a reminder TM......under Medicare .....gov't run and partially tax payer supported in conjunction with private companies....the scenerio you now think OK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
You asked a good question - and I cannot give you an exact answer except to say - you will see reduced premiums. AND, if your financial situation is such that you still have problems financially getting insurance, there will be some subsidies out there to help.[/quote]

I am going to seriously doubt this in cases like mine and millions of others because we CAN and DO 'afford' the premiums because we set insurance as a priority even when it hurts,
Remember, the PRIMARY argument TM and her ilk argue about is getting those, currently without insurance, insured. And frankly, that is the primary objective of the legislation being drawn up.

To allow / help those who want health insurance to be able to better afford it thereby making insurance more accessible.

But keep this in mind: There are ALWAYS going to be those who do not want insurance - and they will be allowed to make this decision. AND, then there is the issue of those in the country illegally - at this time in the legislative process, they will not get help in getting insurance. I say this cautiously as there are some on Capital Hill who are trying to provide for help for Illegals. This point is shaping up to be a battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,999,760 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Give us a hint GD.What range of premium decrease is being projected?

I hope that this substantial decrease is not going to be the paltry 1 1/2 % that I saw mentioned elsewhere and that the proposals for stemming the increases in the future is not the relief being hoped for.
You do know that if everyone is not made to participate, that a large part of the reason for it to be so high will continue....both due to paying insureds also footing part of the cost of uninsureds and/or taxes to do so.
This kind of action, along with how Medicare is being run, TM, is why I do not trust this government to be in charge.
BTW....since eminent domain is a process by which the government can take private property from a private entity unwilling to sell it.......and all those greedy capitalistic corporate fat cats love money...do you think they wouldn't sell whatever health facilities the gov't wanted to buy?
Either you misunderstood GD or he was injecting the idea just to support some arguement at the time.(Not that he would do that!)
The reason why medicare/medicaid is having such a hard time really does not have anything to do with the government.

First.. it is something that is paid for by taxpayers that taxpayers do not get the benefit of. Therefore, it's very hard to justify tax increases on medicaid/medicare to the masses. So.. it's underfunded.

As a result of that underfunding the government must then set the absolute lowest possible payouts to Dr's and hospitals in order to sustain itself. As a result.. the cost gets pushed on to the rest of us through higher prices to make up for a percieved "loss" in what goes out via Medicaid/Medicare.

Also.. medicaid and particularly medicare are used by the SICKEST of the population. That is obvious with medicare of course, given that the population is over 65. But medicaid is also utilized by a large number of "sicker" individuals. People who ARE chronically ill who have lost jobs as a result and therefore fall below the poverty line.. and a number of other reasons.

BUT.. in defense of medicaid it does run at a 5% adminstrative overhead as opposed to private health insurance that runs at a 30% overhead. There is no 12M a year payout to someone heading Medicaid, nor are there lobbying costs, advertising costs and a myriad of other costs associated with private insurance.

As far as eminent domain. GD has continually argued that in order to switch to a UHC the government would have to buy out private entities and that the U.S government couldn't afford to do it therefore he claimed that a UHC would be impossible. But in the scenario I laid out private entities aren't even touched and there would be no buy outs of any kind needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,665,850 times
Reputation: 24861
The government does not have to issue or renew corporate charters unless they are in the public interest. We could transfer all the health insurance business to a government entity and not have to pay anyone a dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
As far as eminent domain. GD has continually argued that in order to switch to a UHC the government would have to buy out private entities and that the U.S government couldn't afford to do it therefore he claimed that a UHC would be impossible. But in the scenario I laid out private entities aren't even touched and there would be no buy outs of any kind needed.
Your original position was that the system should be totally government run - and you cannot deny this.

In was in this context that I noted the issue of Eminent Domain. Here is a clear example of YOU totally misrepresenting what I said - you are now injecting that I said eminent domain would apply in your Switzerland example - and that is TOTALLY AND COMPLETLY FALSE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
The government does not have to issue or renew corporate charters unless they are in the public interest. We could transfer all the health insurance business to a government entity and not have to pay anyone a dime.
Not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,999,760 times
Reputation: 908
[quote=old_cold;8755770]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post

You asked a good question - and I cannot give you an exact answer except to say - you will see reduced premiums. AND, if your financial situation is such that you still have problems financially getting insurance, there will be some subsidies out there to help.[/quote]

I am going to seriously doubt this in cases like mine and millions of others because we CAN and DO 'afford' the premiums because we set insurance as a priority even when it hurts, unlike so many others who feel a new or newer car,clothes from someplace other than the thrift store and housing in a nicer area is more important.
Even though it isn't considered an official medical expense, we include in our 'health budget' to go south in the winter because my husband would be pretty much confined to the house from Nov to May (thereabouts) otherwise.
It's pretty sad that 4/6 months in Fl costs us much less than our "free" ( as so many think Medicare is) government provided health care.
The fact that being under the gov't healthcare umbrella costs us so much....as much as our last paid out-of-pocket private insurance....... is another thing I have pointed out numerous times to proponents of it but it keeps getting ignored

Jus a reminder TM......under Medicare .....gov't run and partially tax payer supported in conjunction with private companies....the scenerio you now think OK

Yes.. I understand the difference between Medicaid and medicare.. but also keep in mind that medicare operates with the sickest of population with the highest need for medical care/ prescription drugs.. etc.

which is precisely why I feel that any reductions made of sellign across state lines will counter the affect of people NOT buying insurance UNTIL and UNLESS they need it immediately . I like that the pre-existing condition clause is being lifted AND denial of coverage being lifted as well across the boards (if I'm not mistaken) giving people like myself a little more choice, but that also could cause a backlash of people not purchasing insurance because they think they don't have an immediate need for it.

From an article I read weeks back when the whole health talks began.. the insurance companies wanted that as a condition of lifting pre-existing conditions. This would have also prevented the severity of any "surcharge" that would be applied to someone seeking insurance.

All it may do is make insurance cheaper for everyone else and more expensive for the sickest of the population causing us, once again, to have to chose between groceries and health insurance.
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 05:44 AM.

© 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