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 09-25-2010, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118

Advertisements

Quote:
The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which first chose people for the study using randomly generated telephone numbers and home addresses. Once people were selected to participate, they were interviewed online. Participants without Internet access were provided it for free.

Stanford University's participation in the project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Hmmmmm.......I think I'll put my money on ALL the other polls about obamacare...this one is suspect.

And WHO is behind the RWJ Foundation?

It's going to be really interesting to watch as the dems throw up any and all BS they can find to change people's minds about obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2010, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by parfleche View Post
so it's the young and healthy's fault the health care problems are such a mess! got it
I know you're being sarcastic but in a very oblique way, what you say is true. Young healthy people as a percentage don't have chronic medical problems. 18 to 45, most people don't use health care services beyond annual checkups. These folks don't participate in the insurance pool at the ratio of older individuals. But for insurance costs to decrease, you have to have a pool of healthy people to offset the costs of those that need services. I understand the "I'll take care of myself crowd" hate this concept but it really is the only way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 8,312,279 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
And there are a lot of reasons to oppose this kind of favoritism in the health care coverage arena, too. And there are also drawbacks that increase both healthcare and insurance costs for those not enrolled in them.

Since HSAs require having a high-deductible plan, a catastrophic accident or illness could still lead to financial ruin of a family or individual. And those most likely to participate are the young and healthy, so when they take away funds from the insurance risk pool, it forces insurers to raise premiums and/ or cut benefits for those who cannot afford high deductible plans, which are usually low to middle-income families.

Not to mention, it's just another pocket-padding scheme for the well-to-do, cooked up by the Bush administration. The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to people in higher income brackets than to lower income families who don't have the ability to put the maximum amount allowed into their savings accounts.
Jill, I'm not sure you really understand what these plans are all about. What do the health care costs and insurance costs for those not enrolled in HDHP's have to do with the people who are enrolled in them?

And how could a catastrophic illness or accident lead to financial ruin when you have a cap on out of pocket expenses? Once that cap is met, the plan pays 100%. You use your HSA savings to cover the initial costs up to your cap, then your insurance pays 100% thereafter. Not only that, but it costs a fraction (literally!) of the annual cost of a traditional plan.

Even the article you linked stated that these plans are a HUGE benefit to the middle class, and not nearly as much to the "rich". The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to people in LOWER income brackets.... the exact opposite of what you stated above. Re-read your link.

Quote:
So are the accounts destined to be mere tools of the affluent? Roy Ramthun, president of HSA Consulting Services in Silver Spring, Md., and a former Treasury Department staff member who worked on health initiatives, said this didn’t have to be the case. Those with an account could theoretically keep their health care receipts throughout the year, he said, deposit a lump sum into an H.S.A. to qualify for that year’s tax benefits and then immediately yank the money out again to reimburse themselves for the expenses.
Banks that administer the accounts probably wouldn’t like that approach very much. But they often charge fees on the accounts, and some of the balances have already gotten quite large. HSA Bank, which is based in Milwaukee but has customers all over the country, had 265 accounts with at least $50,000 stored up as of Jan. 1. The largest balance was at least $115,000.
Still, this hardly makes the accounts a big plaything for the rich, according to Mr. McKechnie of the bankers association. “The notion that you’re going to maintain richness by being able to sequester $5,000 a year, well, it offers a very limited utility for the average Wall Street hedge fund guy,” he said. “He’s not thanking the president for preserving H.S.A.’s because this is what his retirement planning was hinging on.”
Maybe not. But for anyone who will soon be paying higher taxes because of the health care bill, taking some of it back through an H.S.A. contribution is pretty easy money if you qualify. And for everyone else who ends up in an eligible health insurance plan, it would be wise to at least cycle some money through an account.
No matter how you look at it, this is a much more affordable health insurance option for lower and middle class families than traditional plans. It aims to benefit those of lower SES much more than those in the higher income brackets. This isn't a left vs. right, republican vs. democrat issue. This type of plan could benefit everyone. Besides, democrats were the ones in support of these plans in the early 90's as an alternative to HMO's. I guess I don't really get why you appear to be so against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 17,001,975 times
Reputation: 22090
Quote:
Originally Posted by parfleche View Post
so it's the young and healthy's fault the health care problems are such a mess! got it
Don't forget, one day the young and healthy will be the old and sick........and then they too will benefit from the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 10:57 PM
 
Location: mancos
7,786 posts, read 8,010,775 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
I know you're being sarcastic but in a very oblique way, what you say is true. Young healthy people as a percentage don't have chronic medical problems. 18 to 45, most people don't use health care services beyond annual checkups. These folks don't participate in the insurance pool at the ratio of older individuals. But for insurance costs to decrease, you have to have a pool of healthy people to offset the costs of those that need services. I understand the "I'll take care of myself crowd" hate this concept but it really is the only way.
well I'm pushing 60 myself and dont wanna pool my health care dollars with a bunch of sick overweight fast food eating out of shape loosers.I pay any medical bills cash averages about 100$ a year so I'm ahead of the game. If I get something that is going to kill me then I'll die. dont want to be a guinea pig for some intern that needs hands on training cause some ins is paying for it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,209,134 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Most people like what the bill does. It bans pre-existing conditions, bans rescission, gets rid of lifetime caps, and let's young adults up to 26 stay on their parents insurance. I would be hard pressed to find people who would want to get rid of those tangible changes.
And yet, what we see is rising insurance bills caused by the companies being forced to take in all those who cost so much to get covered. I guess nobody in your situation sees that this has happened.

If 61% of people want this thing repealed how can there be more who think it doesn't go far enough? I keep wondering about that part of this debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,209,134 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
How do you know what they read or didn't read? What are you, a mind reader?
Didn't Nasty Nancy say that we had to pass it to find out what is in it? If the leader of the House didn't know then I wonder who else other than Andy Stern and other labor leaders who were in on the writing of the bill really knew when the Senate used bribed votes to pass it.

How much debate was done in either house before the vote in either of them? I think none, at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,209,134 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Another question you can ask people who bring up this stupid talking point is how does one write something without reading? Did they just close their eyes and let their hands free write the entire bill?
What committee in the Senate was really involved in writing that abomination and how much debate was done about the finished product? I want people like you to tell us the answer to this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,209,134 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Yes, Congress actually wrote the bill. The main bill was wrote by the Senate finance committee, and was amended by the full Senate and then amended further by the House.
Your post is full of absolute and steaming Pelosi. The bill was not written by that committee but by a small group of Senators with not one Republican in the group along with some union leaders and some insurance representatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
And yet, what we see is rising insurance bills caused by the companies being forced to take in all those who cost so much to get covered. I guess nobody in your situation sees that this has happened.

If 61% of people want this thing repealed how can there be more who think it doesn't go far enough? I keep wondering about that part of this debate.
To answer your question, the disparity comes from the fact that the pre-existing condition clause and the insurance mandate are a married solution. You can't have one without the other. mandates are supposed to cover the additional cost of insurance companies covering all the pre existing conditions. Unfortunately, the pre existing conditions clause went into effect last week, but the mandate doesn't take effect until 2013, I think. Thus, premiums will probably go up for private insurance. I'm not defending any of this, just trying to answer your question, so please don't pick a fight with me.

By the way, I had this overwhelming urge to tune into Glen Beck today but he wasn't on. Probably won't happen for another 10 years.
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 07:30 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