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.
Any national reform in the US is NOT meant to be modeled after health care availability in Canada or Europe or other places that provide free health care.
The way I understand it is like this: 60% of the population is covered under an employer's plan of an employer that is large and decent enough to offer health care coverage 13% of the population is covered under Medicare (and can buy wraparound plans to bring their costs even lower) 13% of the population is covered by Medicaid, state programs for the indigent who plain out don't have a lot of money.
That leaves 1 out of 7 (14%) Americans without a sponsored health plan - self-employed people, people who work in small businesses, and people who aren't poor enough to be on Medicaid. Some of these people CAN AND DO buy it. Others can't, because (1) they can't afford to, or (2) have a pre-existing condition. With item (2) the insurance companies will deny people coverage if they have a less than optimal health record - for controllable things like hypertension or if they've used sleeping pills for insomnia!
As I understand it, health care reform is aimed at getting access for that 1 in 7 that can't get it - your hairdresser, your bookkeeper, your plumber or electrician, a free-lance appraiser...and they won't get it for free. If they make normal money, they'll pay a market rate that doesn't penalize them for a pre-existing condition. If they're not "in the chips," they'll pay some indexed discounted rate.
Story: I was driving down a major boulevard in a conservative section of a state capital where, whether it's same-sex marriage or health reform, the WASPy faces of those who either work for a large company or the government are out there holding signs against health care reform. I guess since it's a "given" for them, they're against it. Talk about inequity.
So, then, if it's to assist that minority (14%) of the US population that won't be sold insurance or can't qualify for Medicaid, why are people so rabidly against this?
since obamacare has been passed fewer people have insurance and the costs have skyrocketed. This was never about providing an answer to our healthcare costs. It was always about increasing the scope and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberties. Sorry.
Fewer People Get Health Insurance at Work
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: February 16, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The percentage of Americans who received health insurance from an employer dropped in 2011, according to a Gallup poll.
About 45% of Americans had insurance through their employer in 2011, compared with 49% in 2008, when the decline began, the poll found.
That's partly because of people losing their jobs, but that's not the only cause, the survey authors said. Even Americans who were still working in 2011 -- in both full- and part-time jobs -- were less likely to get insurance from their employer.
"This could be for one of two reasons and is likely a combination of both: either some workers can no longer afford the rising cost of the health insurance the employer offers, or the employer is simply not offering health insurance any longer," they wrote.
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance have risen sharply, going up to about $15,073 for family coverage in 2011 -- a 9% increase from the previous year, according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Workers paid an average of $4,129 of that cost..........
Actually it was probably you. You can tell by following the thread.
Please give a specific quote and I will speak about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You seems to support and oppose mandates, depending on the mandate.
I do not support any mandates. Saying that I believe something is Constitutional does not mean I support or want it. There's a difference between a personal opinion and an opinion about what's legally possible. I've already addressed this in my last post about single payer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Your compromise does not resolve anything. Or am I missing something here? How does it resolve the problem?
It resolves the problem by covering the so-called "freeloaders" and anyone else who wants to use a "public option". Instead of worrying about making a profit, it can reinvest premiums into lowering costs for its' members and increasing access for "freeloaders" to join their pool. If freeloaders who don't join need non-emergency care, they can be directed towards the community health clinics and public hospitals that would be in-network for the public option non-profit. If they weren't on insurance at the point of obtaining care, they would have to either sign up for Medicaid, or if they are ineligible because of higher income, need to work out payment reimbursement arrangements that actually have collection teeth, yet fair. Of course none of this would happen until they are stabilized, I'm not trying to say someone needs to sign payment arrangements while they are bleeding to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Obamacare doesn't really take over any component of HC, insurance, hospitals, doctors, private clinics etc would remain in private hands. It does not take over anything. Or how do you interpret the word "takeover". You mean takeover=regulate? They are not synonymous.
Of course it is a takeover. The states can't opt out and individuals can't opt out. I've read enough of the bill to see that the HHS Secretary has wide latitude over the healthcare system. Before, these systems were generally regulated by the states. I don't mind the feds regulating companies that decide to provide insurance across state lines, similar to a federal bank, but there is no role when dealing with an in-state insurance company only covering citizens of that state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It would save half a trillion in freeloader-care, and the savings are designed to fund other stuff in the bill, like no-max limits and pre-existing conditions etc. Who knows if it would have been successful. It is all a moot point, if SC overturns it.
That's what was promised, but news this week says it's going to cost double what they stated. We've been through this already, Medicare has cost much more than was promised when the bill initially passed. Why should Obamacare be any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No, I admit I do not have a perfect solution to it. I dont' think anyone does. It is a very tricky problem to solve.
You admit this, yet aren't even willing to discuss the nuts and bolts of a compromise. You want your way of imposing on others, or the highway. At least I'm willing to help meet your goal of covering the uninsured, just in a way that preserves people's freedom of choice (or to not choose).
Therefore, there are only two conditions you need to meet to qualify for Medicare benefits:
•You must have paid money (taxes) into the Medicare system for at least ten years.
•You must be age 65 or older, unless you have a disability or permanent kidney failure.
No, they didn't pay in "more than they needed to". They paid in and got it all back plus extra after April 15th.
I'll try to be clearer, maybe you don't understand my point.
If a person has a withholding of $2,000 in federal tax, $1,000 in FICA (Medicare/SS) but they take so many tax credits (EITC, child tax credits, etc) they receive a refund check for $9,000 from the Treasury, they are receiving a net profit of $6,000. I've seen this with my own eyes.
Where did the FICA (Medicare/SS) money go if they received more than they put in? Yes, Medicare considers this "paying into the system" but it's not a real contribution since they received a refund above and beyond what they paid in during the year.
Any national reform in the US is NOT meant to be modeled after health care availability in Canada or Europe or other places that provide free health care.
The way I understand it is like this: 60% of the population is covered under an employer's plan of an employer that is large and decent enough to offer health care coverage 13% of the population is covered under Medicare (and can buy wraparound plans to bring their costs even lower) 13% of the population is covered by Medicaid, state programs for the indigent who plain out don't have a lot of money.
That leaves 1 out of 7 (14%) Americans without a sponsored health plan - self-employed people, people who work in small businesses, and people who aren't poor enough to be on Medicaid. Some of these people CAN AND DO buy it. Others can't, because (1) they can't afford to, or (2) have a pre-existing condition. With item (2) the insurance companies will deny people coverage if they have a less than optimal health record - for controllable things like hypertension or if they've used sleeping pills for insomnia!
As I understand it, health care reform is aimed at getting access for that 1 in 7 that can't get it - your hairdresser, your bookkeeper, your plumber or electrician, a free-lance appraiser...and they won't get it for free. If they make normal money, they'll pay a market rate that doesn't penalize them for a pre-existing condition. If they're not "in the chips," they'll pay some indexed discounted rate.
Story: I was driving down a major boulevard in a conservative section of a state capital where, whether it's same-sex marriage or health reform, the WASPy faces of those who either work for a large company or the government are out there holding signs against health care reform. I guess since it's a "given" for them, they're against it. Talk about inequity.
So, then, if it's to assist that minority (14%) of the US population that won't be sold insurance or can't qualify for Medicaid, why are people so rabidly against this?
$$ and the fact that the government is FORCING people to buy it. It's unconstitutional. Not only that....but those who cannot pay...like undocumented workers (read illegal immigrants) get it paid for by the rest of us who do pay.
Enough is enough. healtcare reform is one thing....government using it's power to force it down our throats is another.
Please give a specific quote and I will speak about it.
If you don't want to look it up, then I do not care? At this point I don't even remember what this was all about.
Quote:
I do not support any mandates. Saying that I believe something is Constitutional does not mean I support or want it. There's a difference between a personal opinion and an opinion about what's legally possible. I've already addressed this in my last post about single payer
The Reagan mandate is a mandate, and a very expensive one. As a matter of fact, the SC might want to review that as well while they are at it. Your proposal is a mandate to pay more tax to fund other people's "freedom" to not pay their bills.
Quote:
It resolves the problem by covering the so-called "freeloaders" and anyone else who wants to use a "public option". Instead of worrying about making a profit, it can reinvest premiums into lowering costs for its' members and increasing access for "freeloaders" to join their pool. If freeloaders who don't join need non-emergency care, they can be directed towards the community health clinics and public hospitals that would be in-network for the public option non-profit. If they weren't on insurance at the point of obtaining care, they would have to either sign up for Medicaid, or if they are ineligible because of higher income, need to work out payment reimbursement arrangements that actually have collection teeth, yet fair. Of course none of this would happen until they are stabilized, I'm not trying to say someone needs to sign payment arrangements while they are bleeding to death.
It does not resolve it, because other people would still have to pay for those who choose to not pay. Any public option would have to be funded by the taxpayers. It is the same problem in a different package.
Quote:
Of course it is a takeover. The states can't opt out and individuals can't opt out. I've read enough of the bill to see that the HHS Secretary has wide latitude over the healthcare system. Before, these systems were generally regulated by the states. I don't mind the feds regulating companies that decide to provide insurance across state lines, similar to a federal bank, but there is no role when dealing with an in-state insurance company only covering citizens of that state.
OK, I wondered how you understand the word "take over" and I suspected you thought it means same as "regulate", and I was right. Take-over means you take over full control of everything, especially money flow and assets, and that is obviously not the case here.
Quote:
You admit this, yet aren't even willing to discuss the nuts and bolts of a compromise. You want your way of imposing on others, or the highway. At least I'm willing to help meet your goal of covering the uninsured, just in a way that preserves people's freedom of choice (or to not choose).
How does forcing people to pay for others equate to "freedom". Your "freedom" would cost everyone else a big penny, and that is not freedom, so your freedom comes at a cost to others. Not good.
If the mandate is deemed illegal by SC, then so be it, and it will die, and we will go back to the freeloader system. Maybe your proposal would be better than that, but don't expect anything else to pass Congress or WH veto in this political environment. This is why it is a moot point to propose new systems. Nothing will pass, so it is either the individual mandate, or the Reagan mandate, one or the other, and I am not sure which is worse, but I like the idea of everyone paying for services they use.
No, they didn't pay in "more than they needed to". They paid in and got it all back plus extra after April 15th.
I'll try to be clearer, maybe you don't understand my point.
If a person has a withholding of $2,000 in federal tax, $1,000 in FICA (Medicare/SS) but they take so many tax credits (EITC, child tax credits, etc) they receive a refund check for $9,000 from the Treasury, they are receiving a net profit of $6,000. I've seen this with my own eyes.
Where did the FICA (Medicare/SS) money go if they received more than they put in? Yes, Medicare considers this "paying into the system" but it's not a real contribution since they received a refund above and beyond what they paid in during the year.
I never heard of FICA money being refunded. I always thought that was a separate tax, meaning separate from general witholding. Perhaps you could show me how this happens.
Secondly, even if your scenario includes the refund of FICA money (which I don't think it does), I can't imagine that this is an issue for very many people.
If you don't want to look it up, then I do not care? At this point I don't even remember what this was all about.
No problem. You leveled the charge, so I asked you to back it up. So we'll just let it go since you don't remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The Reagan mandate is a mandate, and a very expensive one. As a matter of fact, the SC might want to review that as well while they are at it. Your proposal is a mandate to pay more tax to fund other people's "freedom" to not pay their bills.
Actually if you read my original post about this compromise, I prefer this non-profit / public option to be self-funded through bond issues and premium payments. I did say later I don't mind paying taxes towards this goal if it is a necessary part of the compromise, but that's a personal opinion I wouldn't impose that opinion on others if I were in charge.
This compromise is NOT a mandate, as originally posted it is self-funded and people are free to stick with the status quo system instead without additional H&HS takeovers/regulation like Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It does not resolve it, because other people would still have to pay for those who choose to not pay. Any public option would have to be funded by the taxpayers. It is the same problem in a different package.
No they would not unless the Congress decided to bail it out. If you read my original post, I said strong language / laws would need to explicitly state "no bailouts".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
OK, I wondered how you understand the word "take over" and I suspected you thought it means same as "regulate", and I was right. Take-over means you take over full control of everything, especially money flow and assets, and that is obviously not the case here.
If you want to argue strict definitions, fine. We can accept yours to move the ball forward on this debate. I'm more interested in solutions than petty arguments.
That being said: One does not have to take full ownership over something to essentially take it over. I have controlled many properties I didn't own directly, it happens all the time in business.
Obamacare requires insurance companies use 80-85% of their profits towards medical costs. Looks like control over money flow to me!
I'll use someone else's words to make the rest of the takeover point:
Quote:
When you expand Medicaid, government run, and add more enrollees that's adding to government control of healthcare.
When the government decides what kind of healthcare insurance you can buy, that's government control of healthcare.
When the government dictates that you have to buy health insurance and fines you if you don't, that's government control of healthcare.
When the government requires all businesses with 51 or more employees to supply those employees with health insurance or pay a fine that's government control of healthcare.
When the government uses taxpayers money to subsidize the purchase of the government approved health insurance, that's government control of healthcare.
When the government says that health insurance companies have to sell "insurance" to sick people, that's government control of healthcare.
When you create hundreds of new government agencies which will employ thousands of new government bureacrats to oversee the multi thousand page Obamacare law, that's government control of healthcare.
When you mandate how much profit a private health insurance company can make, that's government control of healthcare.
It's true that Obamacare did not put the private health insurance companies out of business. It just co opted then into becoming sub contractors of the federal government. Sooner or later, probably sooner, the private health insurance companies will realize that with all the burdenson new government regulations and restrictions on their business practices that it won't be profitable to stay in the health insurance business. Then all that will be left is the government which is exactly what the Obama and the rest of his liberal cohorts in the Democratic party preferred from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
How does forcing people to pay for others equate to "freedom". Your "freedom" would cost everyone else a big penny, and that is not freedom, so your freedom comes at a cost to others. Not good.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. See my self-funded public option comments above.
Freedom is not always free, and our society has decided in many ways that the cost of freedom is worth it. See wars, taxes, 2nd Amendment, the legal system (especially public defenders), etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
If the mandate is deemed illegal by SC, then so be it, and it will die, and we will go back to the freeloader system. Maybe your proposal would be better than that, but don't expect anything else to pass Congress or WH veto in this political environment. This is why it is a moot point to propose new systems. Nothing will pass, so it is either the individual mandate, or the Reagan mandate, one or the other, and I am not sure which is worse, but I like the idea of everyone paying for services they use.
The mandate should be denied 9-0 if they were using strict Constitutional guidelines. I don't believe in the Supreme Court as much as others do. It is too ideological, as seen by party line votes on both sides. I have the most respect for Anthony Kennedy, because he is the swing vote and doesn't stick to rigid ideology.
This is a site where we share and debate ideas. What's the point of commenting here if we just give up and don't propose anything because it is a moot point since "nothing will pass"?
As I said earlier, freedom is not free. Are you fine with convicted murders running up million dollar legal tabs? At least I'm trying to reduce the healthcare costs while preserving freedom.
I believe my proposals will reduce the costs, but even if they don't, it's better than opening the door to Pandora's box. That's what I'm worried about most, the government using this case as a basis for mandating us to buy things in other sectors or mandating inactive people into economic activity. In a society where freedoms are slowly eroding, the last bastion is refusing to participate. That option is no longer on the table if Obamacare is upheld.
The mandate should be denied 9-0 if they were using strict Constitutional guidelines. I don't believe in the Supreme Court as much as others do. It is too ideological, as seen by party line votes on both sides. I have the most respect for Anthony Kennedy, because he is the swing vote and doesn't stick to rigid ideology.
Maybe they should repeal the Reagan mandate while they are at it. I do not see how it could possibly be constitutional. I agree that the justices will probably vote along party lines, but this is the system we have, and we need to accept the outcome whether we like it or not.
Quote:
This is a site where we share and debate ideas. What's the point of commenting here if we just give up and don't propose anything because it is a moot point since "nothing will pass"?
You are free to express your opinons.
Quote:
As I said earlier, freedom is not free. Are you fine with convicted murders running up million dollar legal tabs? At least I'm trying to reduce the healthcare costs while preserving freedom.
It is fine to propose ideas about self-funding HC systems, but I think we both know such ideas are pipe-dreams, and we both know that realistically the only two possible outcomes in this matter are either Obama's mandate, or Reagans's mandate, and I am not sure which is worse, and I don't think one is any more legal than the other. I think you agree that if Obamacare is killed, the Dems will not allow any Republican HC bill to pass, and Republicans will not allow any other Dem HC bill to pass. The whole system has turned into a joke.
I never heard of FICA money being refunded. I always thought that was a separate tax, meaning separate from general witholding. Perhaps you could show me how this happens.
It is a separate tax from withholding, and maybe you're missing my point again.
The point is, if you take more money out of the system than you put in each year, how are you really contributing? It's not a real contribution, you're getting credit for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Secondly, even if your scenario includes the refund of FICA money (which I don't think it does), I can't imagine that this is an issue for very many people.
Are you sure? 84% of taxpayers received a refund in 2010 (last year I've seen). The average refund was about $3,200 but there's no breakdown of how that average comes about. I've seen people get much more than they put in with my own eyes for years.
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.
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.
