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.
This was the third time in two days that I'd asked a proponent of cross state insurance and tort reform. And this was also the third time, I did not get the answers. Would fourth time be a charm?
Then tell me, what is very bad about ObamaCare? Would it have been better if the bill didn't consider mandate but offered an additional choice to the people: Public Option?
I don't think you would like the reform I would choose. Mine would be eliminate the mandate to treat everyone that walks through the ER. Also, no more employer provided health insurance for comprehensive plans; only thing eligible would be a catastrophic plan. Since there's no more comprehensive plans, you can get something like a supplemental (something like AFLAC) but it won't have that tax advantage of being offered pre-tax income. All cash payments for service and no more doctors checking with the insurance company and filing for you. You want money back? Get it from the insurance company yourself. No more insurance and doctor or hospital agreements on costs. This eliminates which doctors and/or hospitals cover you or not. Now, it's about covering you and not about an agreement with the hospitals and/or doctors. You have to shop doctors yourself to make a determination of cost.
Make it like car insurance, be able to buy across state lines. Tort reform that guts the ambulance chasing lawyers; make it near draconian.
I wish there was never these comprehensive plans, to tell you the truth. That's what caused this. If you had to pay out of pocket for regular care, it would be a LOT cheaper. Sell insurance over state lines. Tort reform. All of those would help but giving everyone and anyone a cadillac health insurance plan is NOT a good idea. All that does is raise costs and taxes for everyone.
First, you need to consider that right now insurance companies are regulated by state insurance boards. If you allow insurance to be sold over state lines you must abandon all the state insurance regulatory boards. This means the federal government would have to be the default regulatory board for all insurance companies. Is that what you people really want? Or God forbid, are you suggesting that we deregulate the entire health insurance industry?
Second the whole tort reform issue is a red herring. It would do very little to nothing to lower cost of health care. What it would do is deprive an individual the avenue of recourse if there was a case of medical malpractise. here's some links for ya to ponder.
Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A.
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
Largest tax increase in the history of the country in a time we are in the biggest depression since WWII. Yippe. Only fools cheer this on. After all this is what the supremes said. It is not up to us to decide whether this is good or bad for the people. It is up to us to decide if its constitutions and they have the power to levy taxes which they said this is. So the democrats lied the entire time about it not being a tax first off then cheer when this monster of a tax is hoisted upon the country during a depression. And this is good in their eyes. Just wait until the next barrel is unloaded which will be the EPA global warming taxes on our heating and electricity bills. Obama and his cronies intended to destroy this country as we know it and are well on their way and cheering the entire time. Maybe the swooners are just too dumb to realize it?
In 1993, Washington state passed a law guaranteeing all residents access to private health-care insurance, regardless of their health, and requiring them to purchase coverage. The state legislature, however, repealed that last provision two years later. With the guaranteed-access provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and enrollment drop, as residents purchased coverage only when they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington -- no company was selling.
When all of the insurance companies fold up (as swagger mentioned) the only insurer left will be the government. The ACA is sinister in design and nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing.
When the tax cuts expire and this kicks in, those who pay taxes will be paying much more. People are now leaving France to avoid their 75% tax rates. The top 5% will be pushing above that. They already pay close to 55%>
Have you added up everything that is taxed here? YOU might pay 30% fed (the median fed tax rate) but here in Cali we also pay 10% ssales tax; 2.6% property tax; network, connection, conservation incentives... HELL, I pay an additional $13mo for puplic purpose programs on my electric bill.
If I didn't pay a dime to the FED, I'd still be taxed over 20% easily. I'm about to send a check to the state for over $3000.
Yippy, yes we are highly taxed, yes we are behind much of the world, yes we have become a soicialized country, and yes we will become a 3rd world entity before you know it.
EXP1: In just two decades we've gone from 1st to 25th in education.
EXP2: The government just spent $120M to find $22M in medicare fraud.
The government is brilliant at throwing money away, and finding solutions is the last thing they get in return. Spread the wealth baby!!
I'm at 35% on my federal and I pay all the other taxes/fees you mentioned. It's still less than I paid when I worked for my previous firm outside of the US as an expat. I am one of the owners in my current business so I see the entire picture when it comes to payroll taxes and other withholdings. I should also note that I pay an average of about $1700 per month, per employee for our health plan. My enthusiasm for a single payer system is based on the economic reality that having employer sponsored health care is unsustainable, as the costs will surely continue to rise and the overall impact on the economy will be devastating. Economies of scale necessitate a single payer solution. It's the only way forward.
Sure sounds good the freebees and add ons.. who pays for it??.. the American People.. government expansion into socialism.. Our paychecks will be small, and we won't be able to buy food for those who work and do things right but the lazy crowd will have health care and probably abuse it.
If you don't like it move to Canada... oh wait.
Seriously, this is a non-argument since those without insurance end up in ERs and everyone else pays for it anyway through insurance. In any case, other countries have proven that the overall cost drops when all are covered.
It's also not Socialism any more than the federal government's regulation of health care since 1790 is Socialism. Government mandates all kinds of things for employer provided health care and that's not Socialism. The very idea that private companies providing private insurance coverage for individuals is Socialism is preposterous on its face.
If you owe nobody nothing then you owe everybody everything
Anyway, if you pay for your own care now I.e you have insurance you won't be fined or taxed or whatever anything. Why is this so difficult to understand??
And P.s taxes are not theft. You do have a responsibility to the society you live in right? Tax and redistribution should offset inefficiencies created by a "free market".. You know, the one that brought the house crashing down in 2008.
The housing crash was due to low income people buying homes they could not afford. 3 millon buyers never made the first mortgage payment and got a free ride and free housing for a few years before the banks could foreclose. Thank Barney Frank, Maxine waters and Acorn.
Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A.
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
No, the premiums that doctors pay for malpractice insurance is the other side of the coin that this little Q&A doesn't address. That is the tail and hind quarters of the dog.
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.
