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, 11:14 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,301,909 times
Reputation: 2049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
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?
Here's the kicker:

You can live without a car. You can't live with an untreated heart condition.

Rather than comparing types of insurance, compare healthcare to police or fire protection. It's a life or death situation, not a question of financial liability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,789 posts, read 28,995,932 times
Reputation: 7377
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.

The highlighted areas are where I am confused. If the younger, allegedly healthier people are paying more, and Medicare reimbursement is being slashed (bearing in mind that Medicare-eligible people already pay a premimum to Medicare) how will physicians make up the reduced Medicare reimbursement? Will the government increase the the amount a physician is allowed to charge the Medicare patient -- further increasing their health expenses?

My MIL pays $1,200 a year for Medicare premiums, in addition to what Medicare requires her to pay the physician and/or specialist for each visit. With the new health care bill reducing those fees (somewhere I heard mentioned as much as 50%) will she be paying that, too?

It stinks that the healthy young have to subsidize the ailing elderly, but chances are their income (if they have a job) is growing as opposed to the seniors who saw no COLA on their Social Security for 2010 and none for 2011, either.

The government should place a VAT on purchases to subsidize the program, taxing by their ability to purchase items. Lower income people will naturally pay less VAT then their wealthier counterparts. But maybe that's why our politicians aren't going that route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,789 posts, read 28,995,932 times
Reputation: 7377
Seeing as there has been comparison of Health insurance to Auto insurance -- let me ask this: when will the federal government start requiring everyone (driver and non driver alike) to carry auto insurance, and mandate that their employer provide it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:26 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,851 posts, read 10,524,951 times
Reputation: 9514
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Here's the kicker:

You can live without a car. You can't live with an untreated heart condition.

Rather than comparing types of insurance, compare healthcare to police or fire protection. It's a life or death situation, not a question of financial liability.
Fair enough, but you should tell these folks that keep comparing it to auto insurance. I get sick of reading it when it doesn't really correlate. It's just not a good analogy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:28 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,851 posts, read 10,524,951 times
Reputation: 9514
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
Seeing as there has been comparison of Health insurance to Auto insurance -- let me ask this: when will the federal government start requiring everyone (driver and non driver alike) to carry auto insurance, and mandate that their employer provide it?
Oh, I'd say it's right around the corner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2009, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,976 posts, read 15,428,301 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
The highlighted areas are where I am confused. If the younger, allegedly healthier people are paying more, and Medicare reimbursement is being slashed (bearing in mind that Medicare-eligible people already pay a premimum to Medicare) how will physicians make up the reduced Medicare reimbursement? Will the government increase the the amount a physician is allowed to charge the Medicare patient -- further increasing their health expenses?

My MIL pays $1,200 a year for Medicare premiums, in addition to what Medicare requires her to pay the physician and/or specialist for each visit. With the new health care bill reducing those fees (somewhere I heard mentioned as much as 50%) will she be paying that, too?

It stinks that the healthy young have to subsidize the ailing elderly, but chances are their income (if they have a job) is growing as opposed to the seniors who saw no COLA on their Social Security for 2010 and none for 2011, either.

The government should place a VAT on purchases to subsidize the program, taxing by their ability to purchase items. Lower income people will naturally pay less VAT then their wealthier counterparts. But maybe that's why our politicians aren't going that route.

Much of that highlighted stuff really isn't true. This actually goes back to 1997, when a balanced budget amendment was passed to tie Medicare reimbursement payments to the SGR (Sustainable Growth Rate) which is based off the GDP. Starting in about 2002 or 2003 following the SGR would have resulted in the cuts, Congress acted to stop the cuts, but didn't change the SGR formula. This dragged on for till this year, the adjustments were made to stop the cuts, but nothing was done to correct the underlying issue with the SGR. Last month the House passed a bill that stopped the proposed reimbursement cuts for 2010 (which would have been 21%), however Congress finally acted to revise the SGR system so we would not be dealing with these temporary fixes and stop gap measures in order to stop the cuts. It does not cut the reimbursement amounts the way those who want reform to fail at all costs try to scare people into believing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2009, 09:44 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 5,468,034 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
The highlighted areas are where I am confused. If the younger, allegedly healthier people are paying more, and Medicare reimbursement is being slashed (bearing in mind that Medicare-eligible people already pay a premimum to Medicare) how will physicians make up the reduced Medicare reimbursement? Will the government increase the the amount a physician is allowed to charge the Medicare patient -- further increasing their health expenses?

My MIL pays $1,200 a year for Medicare premiums, in addition to what Medicare requires her to pay the physician and/or specialist for each visit. With the new health care bill reducing those fees (somewhere I heard mentioned as much as 50%) will she be paying that, too?

It stinks that the healthy young have to subsidize the ailing elderly, but chances are their income (if they have a job) is growing as opposed to the seniors who saw no COLA on their Social Security for 2010 and none for 2011, either.

The government should place a VAT on purchases to subsidize the program, taxing by their ability to purchase items. Lower income people will naturally pay less VAT then their wealthier counterparts. But maybe that's why our politicians aren't going that route.
It is thought that some of the provisions in the bill such as not precluding people for having pre-existing conditions, not charging an appropriate premium for those with a medical history over sick people and limiting how much more elderly are charged than younger people will raise younger peoples' premiums. My understanding is that the bill slashed Medicare payments for Physician services and assume that these payments will not be raised at any time during the initial 10 year time frame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2009, 01:29 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,301,909 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Fair enough, but you should tell these folks that keep comparing it to auto insurance. I get sick of reading it when it doesn't really correlate. It's just not a good analogy.
I haven't seen anyone compare the two types of insurance. What I've seen is auto insurance used as an example of a government mandate. This is presented as an argument to counter those who claim mandated insurance to be unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2009, 04:43 PM
 
Location: California
30,509 posts, read 33,322,731 times
Reputation: 25977
The problem with the pay as you go, "I never needed health insurance" crowd is that they never needed health insurance.

Yet I'm guessing that if they developed a serious illness or are involved in bad accident of some sort they wouldn't accept that they can't afford treatment and just go home and die. They would probably want someone to do something. Am I wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2009, 04:54 PM
 
5,697 posts, read 5,442,454 times
Reputation: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by migee View Post
I know many people around my age (including myself) that really did not bother with health insurance for many years. We paid out of our pockets whenever we needed care.

I'm talking about the independent business owners. The economics of having a health care plan just did not make sense.

So, with taking care of oneself - Keeping a healthy lifestyle for self and family, brushing our teeth every day, not running to a doctor for any ache or pain....Somehow most of us survived quite well.

So, looking back over 30 years, someone like myself spent about $60,000 - $70,000 on medical care (including needed sugeries). But, it was more practical than getting the insurance plans, that cost about $400/month (even 20 years ago) - That would have cost about $140,000 over 30 years.

And yes, when I paid cash to the doctors/dentists, even for surgeries, they took the cash payments into consideration (the hospitals were the problem, charging about $4,000 - $5,000 for the operating rooms).

But, we had the choice...And, the savings helped.

It is true that perhaps many of us were lucky that nothing catasthropic happened...But, I think that is true for many that do watch what they are doing with their lives.

So, here we are with the new health plan, and the younger generation will not have that choice...Or, am I wrong and there are exceptions?

I imagine that many people that have started businesses, and have had ups and downs in their businesses, will agree that $400, $500 or whatever per month can be a problem. With a small business, believe me, sometimes you barely have money for basics in life....

So, the younger generation may have a hell of a time with this burden if they are starting a new business, or if they are working for a start-up company that may not offer health care.

Now people my age, are going to be supplemented by the younger people. I don't think it's fair.

You're damn right I'm taking it, but it is an unfair situation.

It's ironic...The younger generations were so enthusiastic about this new government...And here we are (the older ones) getting the benefits on this one.

One can say that it is fair that the burden be shared (to help the older generation)...But, I just hope that the formulas (schedule for all of this to come into place) does not dampen opportunity for younger people to start new businesses - especially small, independent businesses.

**I've got to add, (over 40 years of working) that I did have periods in which I was covered, as I sometimes worked for other companies. And I did use the opportunities to take care of some needed problems.

I am curious about others that worked independently (or mostly independent like I did). Do you find this to be similar to your lives? Did you manange to get by with minimum or no coverage?


I have my own business for 20 years, am 58 years old and pay for my own health insurance
it is tough, but I do it
along with paying my morgage, business insurance, SS and on and on and on
I do not take vacactions or go out to movies
but I am better off than a lot of folks
do I want this health care bill???
Hell No!!
Hell NO!
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. The time now is 05:17 PM.

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