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 12-26-2009, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,054 posts, read 7,779,834 times
Reputation: 6937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123 View Post
This bill is going to redistribute wealth from young to old. Because of the regulations and restrictions, younger and healthy people will pay more in premiums and those on the more risky side and older may either pay a bit less or see stabilization. This bill is a disaster: it has been said that it contains anywhere from 14-20 tax hikes. Even the CBO said they double-counted the Medicare cuts, which probably won't take place (to the full extent) to begin with. In addition, Physicians' fees through Medicare are slashed and never raised during the time frame. Rumor has it that there will be a separate bill to not slash Doctors' pay and the pay was slashed just so the CBO could score it 'deficit neutral' or a reduction. Anyone who thinks this bill is good for the Healthcare system or budget needs to stop with the Kool-Aid.

Tort reform is not even addressed, as the trial lawyers own the (D) party, alongside Soros, MoveOn and the other wackos.

Think about the bill.

Tort reform? Nope.
Selling insurance across state lines? Nope.
Changing the tax codes so individuals can write off premiums? Nope.
Stripping down mandates allowing for more basic/cheaper plans? Nope.
Bunch of right wing spin. I do admit you have all the talking points down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:32 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 37,103,870 times
Reputation: 12758
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
38 states have enacted tort reform. It hasn't brought down costs. Indeed, in Nevada, right after tort reform was enacted, the insurance companies requested a rate increase

Selling across state lines won't do a thing. It may make matters worse as companies flock to the states with the least regulation.

Tax write offs are no different than subsidies. There are subsidies in the bill.

What mandates?
Tort reform has brought/kept physicians in those states which in return increases not only the availability of healthcare but also allows competition. Take a state with a major metro area straddeling state lines: when one state does not enact tort reform and the adjacent one does the doctors move their offices across town to the state with the tort reform. My state saw a huge exodus of OB-GYNs due to its failure to enact tort reform.

Where is your supporting evidence that tort reform has failed to bring down costs? Do you think premiums are the only cost of healthcare? Do you fail to recognize that malpractice reform will bring down the cost of Drs. to keep their office doors open and provide care? Do you fail to recognise that this would also lower the costs of hospitalization?

Yes, there are subsidies in the bill for people who are not required to pay a dime. More robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You supposition about competition across state lines is weak and you offer nothing. I know I can purchase healthcare in an adjacent state for less expense than I do in my state of residence. As a self-insured individual I've done the shopping. Have you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,054 posts, read 7,779,834 times
Reputation: 6937
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Tort reform has brought/kept physicians in those states which in return increases not only the availability of healthcare but also allows competition.

Where is your supporting evidence that tort reform has failed to bring down costs? Do you think premiums are the only cost of healthcare? Do you fail to recognize that malpractice reform will bring down the cost of Drs. to keep their office doors open and provide care?

Yes, there are subsidies in the bill for people who are not required to pay a dime. More robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You supposition about competition across state lines is weak and you offer nothing. I know I can purchase healthcare in an adjacent state for less expense than I do in my state of residence. As a self-insured individual I've done the shopping. Have you?
Texas instituted tort reform and the price of health care increased. The ins. cos. pocketed the difference. Google it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:45 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,307,871 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Tort reform has brought/kept physicians in those states which in return increases not only the availability of healthcare but also allows competition. Take a state with a major metro area straddeling state lines: when one state does not enact tort reform and the adjacent one does the doctors move their offices across town to the state with the tort reform. My state saw a huge exodus of OB-GYNs due to its failure to enact tort reform.
Agreed, but this is because doctors' premiums were reduced. That doesn't mean patients' premiums were reduced.

Quote:
Where is your supporting evidence that tort reform has failed to bring down costs? Do you think premiums are the only cost of healthcare? Do you fail to recognize that malpractice reform will bring down the cost of Drs. to keep their office doors open and provide care? Do you fail to recognise that this would also lower the costs of hospitalization?
The evidence is in the rising cost of healthcare. If the costs have risen with 38 states enacting tort reform, what makes you think adding the other 12 will make any difference?

Quote:
Yes, there are subsidies in the bill for people who are not required to pay a dime. More robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Point? Tax writeoffs are robbing peter to pay paul as well. No difference.

Quote:
You supposition about competition across state lines is weak and you offer nothing. I know I can purchase healthcare in an adjacent state for less expense than I do in my state of residence. As a self-insured individual I've done the shopping. Have you?
The company in the bordering state could just as easily set up shop in your state and raise its prices. Companies will drop prices only if forced to. If they see an advantage to moving to another state, they will do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:46 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Tort reform has brought/kept physicians in those states which in return increases not only the availability of healthcare but also allows competition.

Where is your supporting evidence that tort reform has failed to bring down costs? Do you think premiums are the only cost of healthcare? Do you fail to recognize that malpractice reform will bring down the cost of Drs. to keep their office doors open and provide care?

Yes, there are subsidies in the bill for people who are not required to pay a dime. More robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You supposition about competition across state lines is weak and you offer nothing. I know I can purchase healthcare in an adjacent state for less expense than I do in my state of residence. As a self-insured individual I've done the shopping. Have you?
Allowing the purchasing health insurance across state lines without strong federal legislation is a bad idea. Currently we do have usury laws in the US, but you would never know it because credit is available across state lines which means that rather then having creditors work out of states with strong usury laws they lend out of states with ambiguous and weak laws. In other words a race to the bottom. The same is true for health insurance. They can flock to the lowest regulation state, charge a little less and exploit every loophole in the book not to cover you and I assure you they have the attorneys to find and exploit every loophole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Great Falls, Montana
3,983 posts, read 3,370,707 times
Reputation: 1301
I'm still trying to figure out how all of the costs are going to play out for the youngsters once the babyboomers die off ...

I mean, for all of the increases that are happening now, and will happen w/in the next 20 years, how do you think the population of the United States, which will be much less than it is now, is going to pay for all of this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,054 posts, read 7,779,834 times
Reputation: 6937
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I'm still trying to figure out how all of the costs are going to play out for the youngsters once the babyboomers die off ...

I mean, for all of the increases that are happening now, and will happen w/in the next 20 years, how do you think the population of the United States, which will be much less than it is now, is going to pay for all of this?

Once the baby boomers die off you young folks will be shi$$ing in tall cotton. Nothing to pay forward. It will all be yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Great Falls, Montana
3,983 posts, read 3,370,707 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Once the baby boomers die off you young folks will be shi$$ing in tall cotton. Nothing to pay forward. It will all be yours.
But won't the Government and the Insurance companies try to maintain the higher levels of payment?

I mean, it's going to be expensive now, even with the cost sharing among millions .. once there are "less" millions to share the load .. then what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,886 posts, read 102,301,239 times
Reputation: 32946
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I didn't have insurance for 10 years when I first started working. I paid cash for any medical services and that included a few broken bones and hospital trips. Not everyone lives in fear of a high hospital bill.

Not every hospital trip is $800K you know.
Some of us do live in fear of a high hospital bill. My daughters, who just graduated from college and started working, do. They are saving money as best they can, but that takes years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:02 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,851 posts, read 10,527,907 times
Reputation: 9515
You know, you people who keep comparing this health care bill to car insurance sure aren't thinking it through.

First of all, who am I insuring when I get car insurance? Not me. I'm insuring (with liability insurance) that the other guy is compensated for what I do to him if I'm at fault in a crash and bum him up--if I'm liable, my insurance covers him, not me.

Second, car insurance is not mandatory. I don't have to buy it if I don't drive. In some states, I don't have to buy it if I can post so many thousands of dollars in personal funding (whatever amount that is required in those states).



On the other hand, I cannot not buy the Obama Umbrella Plan Insurance unless I commit suicide or live in poverty. It is in essence, an existence tax. Unconstitutional in that way and several others.

Not to mention the huge class of young people who will simply pay the fee to get out of buying insurance, and then when they get older or start getting sick, will run right out and buy insurance from companies who cannot deny them for pre-existing conditions. How long do you think the insurance companies are going to stay solvent operating like that? When they only insure those who are presently sick?

This entire plan is one big disaster waiting to happen. It would have been cheaper on everyone in the long run if the government had just said, "From this day forward, everyone in the country receives medical care and is taxed according to their usage of the system and wage scale." That's not really what I would like to see, but it would make more sense. The way it's set up now is a halfassed flop.



You people keep comparing this to car insurance. I pay about $18 dollars a month for car insurance. That's because I've never been in a wreck, never had a ticket, and never filed a claim in my entire life. I'm sure I could even get a better rate if I looked around. So if you really want to work it like that, I should be paying nearly zero dollars for health insurance: I've been to the doctor three times in twenty-five years and never been hospitalized. So how about it, you car insurance comparers? Should I pay next to nothing because of my 'good health driving record'? You keep wanting to compare, so how about it?
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
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