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.
No one will fall through any "cracks". THAT'S WHAT HTEY ALWAYS SAY.. BUT JMIDDLE CLASS FALL THROGH SO MANY CRACKS.. LIKE THE ONES THAT MEDCARE/MEDICAID HAVE.. INCOME LEVELS.. WHO DETERMINES HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE. RIGHT NOW HEALTH INSURANCE TAKES UP 16% OF MY INCOME!!! FOR A ALOT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS I MAKE SEEMINGLY TOO MUCH..YET PAYING MY HEALTH PREMIUM MAKES ME HAVE TO CUT OUT OTHER NECCESITIES.. AND ALSO DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO SAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE 16% IS HUGE CHUNK.
End of story.
The combination of changes, will a) bring down health insurance premiums - so instead of you paying $800 - you might pay $550. b) that $550 a month you pay would be entirely deductible so, that instead of you getting a $1,000 refund - you might get a $2,000 refund - thereby subsidizing your premiums AGAIN.. $550 is much more than would or could happen if I'm taxed out of my income.. AND the pool is widespread. I also have to stil lcome up with that extra $550 month.. NOPE.. i think the idea of having insuracne that's paid for with my taxes WITHOUT me having to come up with extra money is a MUCH better idea.... we spread out the "pool" even further with MORE savings. Even if you taxed on 1% of everyones gross earnings.. so a middle income family earning $56,000 gets taxed at 4% of their income that would be about $186/month! Might be doable when you spread the pool among 300 millin people.. sme making more, a lot more.. and some making less.. but no one would be taxed OVER a certain percentage.. Better savings I say.
Expandsion of HSA's allows for tax free savings for those costs not covered by medical insurance - including that ACE bandage you might have to buy once in a while. Would help offset the co-pays you have to pay. AGain.. what about the middle income earner that after basics AND buying their premium has nothing left to save.. for retirment, college for kids ANd now , health savngs.. YOU may make enough to pay for your living expenses and what not.. but you are a HAVE.. not a lot of us can.. I can't.. AND pay over $500 / month for insurance!! So while it's a nice idea.. many people will still fall short and be lacking the health coverage or emergency funds for care they need because again..it's not in the reach of all.!
Allowing for bigger insurance pools WILL BRING health insurance costs down - making it more affordable. Your "pools" will be subdivided.. based on which private carrier they choose! We already have "pools" for employers.. etc... your only adding one more pool that may save us some.. but if you put EVERYONE in ONE BIG GIANT POOL>... as you are so well aware larger pools lowers premiums.. than one giant pool could do that more effectively.
Face it - you want FREE HEALTH INSURANCE - when in fact, it is not going to be free. Nope.. you're right it wuoldn't be FREE.. free would imply that I didn't pay taxes.. I want a UHI system that comes out of my income as a tax sot hat it is there for everyone and everyone contributes and everyone gets evertying covered should they need.. the option to buy different "levels" does NOT solve the problem of those that are underinsured.. lack of affordability makes people choose the "lowest levvel" and then when the poop hits it they are NOT covered and still have the sampe problem. With a UHI system line in the UK.. no one is underinsured and gets what they need covered.. because they all have the TOP plan no matter.. You want anything ABOVE AND BEYOND the "top plan" then you go spend your extra money for extra elective perks like plastic surgery with your private carrier.
And face it, you don't mind government involvement in your life - the UK/Canadian systems all have problems with this government involvment - including the government deciding who lives and who dies. And, that is a fact that you cannot accept. You fail to ignore what our Brit friend told you that the gov't has no say in what gets done and not done.. Dr's do. They are all private sector doctors. and for the first time care will actually be in the hands of the Dr's. You continually ignore my post when I keep saying that 'YOU THINK WITH PRIVATE CARE YOU HAVE CONTROL AND YOUR DR. HAS CONTROL.. .. BUT THE ONLY PERSON IN CONTROL OF YOUR HEALTHCARE IS THE INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY CONCEREND ABOUT THEIR BOTTOM LINE!! THEY CAN FIND AND TURN YOU DOWN FOR ANY PROCEDURE THAT HURTS THEIR BOTTOM LINE PERIOD!! .. The only people they answer to is their investors..not you and your health. I'd much rather have a ssytem that leaves the care in teh dr's hands and NOT the greedy insurance companies..
And, I for one, don't want the government deciding if I should live or die.
Your stattement is based on ignorant fear that the insurance companies would have you belive and you bought into it hook line and singer. Geero mentioned SEVERAL times that the government, under their UHI does not decide what procedures are done or arent done! The Dr's do.
Face it..your afraid that the little guy will get the same great service you seem to feel you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to get.. and god fobid someone that makes $40K a year actually gets as good a healthplan as someone that makes $200K a year.. and we all porportionately pay the same thing (proportionately).
I'm not going to respond with this anymore.. we had this fight already on another thread and quite honestly it gets nowhere.. GreatDay just manages to twist everything anyone says..
I refused to get sucked into his nonsense... and have this ridiculous fight again.
I'm not going to respond with this anymore.. we had this fight already on another thread and quite honestly it gets nowhere.. GreatDay just manages to twist everything anyone says..
I refused to get sucked into his nonsense... and have this ridiculous fight again.
I really don't understand why people find it so quick to blame the insurance company/industry for the failure of health care. Insurance companies, like Medicare, is a payor. How many really know what percentage of every dollar of premium is medical cost? On a good day when Wall Street is happy, $0.75 out of every dollar is cost...that is what is paid to providers (docs, hospitals, pharmacy). That leaves about $0.15 to pay for overhead (salaries, lease, utilities, normal cost of doing business) and a $0.10 profit margin. Insurance companies tried to control medical costs back when HMO's were put into place...but everybody was up in arms because there was a gatekeeper, or I can't go to my lovey-dovey doctor, or I don't want this provider (he's got bad bedside manners)...whatever. HMO costs for the same procedure costs so much less than PPO or POS or heaven forbid, an indemnity plan and the service is the same. But people raised Cain over the gatekeeper mentality so the insurance industry responded by offering less of this. The providers did not like the lower reimbursement policy of an HMO product. The cost of healthcare is a complex system (way beyond the understanding of Michael Moore) as it is a combination of provider charges and the cost of drugs in general, and oh yes, a minor thing like mortalities and morbidities. If a surgeon just would not charge $538 for a 15-minute consult, that might help, but he has to recover his malpractice insurance premiums from somewhere. And why the co-pay for pediatric Tamiflu would be $70 floors me, as well as the fact that there is no generic equivalent. Pharmaceutical companies should stop creating lifestyle drugs to treat ED, RLS, toenail fungus and botox or other wrinkle-reducing drugs, and recovering the R&D cost of that from drugs that people really need to live and get well, and instead should pay attention to improving drugs to treat orphan diseases (e.g. a lot of childhood cancers, etc.) and people need to attempt to get involved in controlling controllable factors that affect their health...like eating better and exercising. To accuse insurance companies alone of corporate greed is unfair, when they are not the deliverer of the healthcare, but instead is the payor. If people are under the impression that the push back to "limit" reimbursement is only on the consumers, it might please you to note that insurance companies do push back on providers as well, so that more of that can be channeled towards providing more for the consumer.
And for TristansMommy, many employers now charge a higher level of premium based on their salaries for the same level of healthcare...same product, same benefits, only it costs them more, because unfortunately for them, they make more. How fair is that?
Last edited by BagongBuhay; 02-10-2008 at 09:05 AM..
Was chatting with my father (lives in MA) and he was frustrated doing his and my sister's taxes because he had to go out and find the special forms now required by the MA DOR to prove they all had health insurance. Huh? Well, yup, it's now mandatory that everyone have insurance or pay a fine -- this year it's $219, next year it'll be $1,000, and after that who knows.
Coincidently, CNN is running a segment on "Broken America" this morning that is highlighting the healthcare crisis, and lo and behold, up comes a report on Massachusetts's new law (enacted in 2006 and in place last year).
What I gather is that if one makes $30,000 or less there are subsidies to help buy the insurance. If a business employs 20 or more, it has to provide healthcare insurance.
One person interviewed was a self-employed musician who now, to remain a law-abiding citizen, has to shell out $700 per month with no subsidies because he makes more than the $30,000 - but not much more. He doesn't want to go without health insurance but he's not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, Mass Health, and as you can see, buying insurance on his own is unaffordable.
The Massachusetts law is being toted as another "shot heard round the world" and the reporters said many, many other states are looking at the MA model to embrace one of their own.
Obviously there is a crisis in the healthcare system, but is Massachusetts's mandatory insurance law the right solution? Your thoughts?
This is why I am so against mandatory health insurance! As it is, I do have insurance. My share of my premium is very affordable, but, bottom line is that I am paying MORE for my health care BECAUSE I have insurance than if I didn't have it at all? How is that? I rarely go to the doctor, and when I do I have co-pays and deductibles to meet so in fact I am actually self funded and just throwing my premium money away. Fifteen years ago I had an emergency surgery, and I was uninsured at the time; it cost me over $10,000. I paid every dime of the cost of that surgery. Yet, when I put pen to paper and figured the difference, it was actually cheaper for me to have paid this myself than it would have been if I had been paying an insurance premium, copay, coinsurance, and deductibles for that time period.
What if your Father was putting $700 per month into a HSA instead of wasting it on a policy he may never use? But with mandatory insurance, that isn't even an option.
I really don't understand why people find it so quick to blame the insurance company/industry for the failure of health care. Insurance companies, like Medicare, is a payor. How many really know what percentage of every dollar of premium is medical cost? On a good day when Wall Street is happy, $0.75 out of every dollar is cost...that is what is paid to providers (docs, hospitals, pharmacy). That leaves about $0.15 to pay for overhead (salaries, lease, utilities, normal cost of doing business) and a $0.10 profit margin. Insurance companies tried to control medical costs back when HMO's were put into place...but everybody was up in arms because there was a gatekeeper, or I can't go to my lovey-dovey doctor, or I don't want this provider (he's got bad bedside manners)...whatever. HMO costs for the same procedure costs so much less than PPO or POS or heaven forbid, an indemnity plan and the service is the same. But people raised Cain over the gatekeeper mentality so the insurance industry responded by offering less of this. The providers did not like the lower reimbursement policy of an HMO product. The cost of healthcare is a complex system (way beyond the understanding of Michael Moore) as it is a combination of provider charges and the cost of drugs in general, and oh yes, a minor thing like mortalities and morbidities. If a surgeon just would not charge $538 for a 15-minute consult, that might help, but he has to recover his malpractice insurance premiums from somewhere. And why the co-pay for pediatric Tamiflu would be $70 floors me, as well as the fact that there is no generic equivalent. Pharmaceutical companies should stop creating lifestyle drugs to treat ED, RLS, toenail fungus and botox or other wrinkle-reducing drugs, and recovering the R&D cost of that from drugs that people really need to live and get well, and instead should pay attention to improving drugs to treat orphan diseases (e.g. a lot of childhood cancers, etc.) and people need to attempt to get involved in controlling controllable factors that affect their health...like eating better and exercising. To accuse insurance companies alone of corporate greed is unfair, when they are not the deliverer of the healthcare, but instead is the payor. If people are under the impression that the push back to "limit" reimbursement is only on the consumers, it might please you to note that insurance companies do push back on providers as well, so that more of that can be channeled towards providing more for the consumer.
And for TristansMommy, many employers now charge a higher level of premium based on their salaries for the same level of healthcare...same product, same benefits, only it costs them more, because unfortunately for them, they make more. How fair is that?
You make a good point! It is NOT fair to blame only the insurance companies for the failure of health care. We have only ourselves to blame. We go to the doctor for the most rediculous things - things that medicine won't cure, we know there is no cure, but still we go to the doctor. And we want diagnostics, not just the doctors opinion! The flu for example. Did you know there is a lab test for the flu? It used to be you could just recognize the symptoms, not any more, no - you have to have a diagnostic to confirm it. I don't know how many claims go across my desk with the flu diagnosis code on them. No life threatening codes, just the flu. Well, I'm sorry, but there is no magic pill for the flu. You may not have an antibiotic, it will not help. The only thing you can do for the flu is live through it until it runs it's course. Drink plenty of fluids to stay hydrated and get plenty of rest. But we don't want to do that, no - we expect a miracle pill for everything! What do you mean I should diet and excercise to control my diabetes? No! I want medicine! I don't want to alter my behavior! It's the way we use the health care system that is driving up costs! But we don't want to alter our behavior, NO! We want the government to provide us with the magic pill!
You make a good point! It is NOT fair to blame only the insurance companies for the failure of health care. We have only ourselves to blame. We go to the doctor for the most rediculous things - things that medicine won't cure, we know there is no cure, but still we go to the doctor. And we want diagnostics, not just the doctors opinion! The flu for example. Did you know there is a lab test for the flu? It used to be you could just recognize the symptoms, not any more, no - you have to have a diagnostic to confirm it. I don't know how many claims go across my desk with the flu diagnosis code on them. No life threatening codes, just the flu. Well, I'm sorry, but there is no magic pill for the flu. You may not have an antibiotic, it will not help. The only thing you can do for the flu is live through it until it runs it's course. Drink plenty of fluids to stay hydrated and get plenty of rest. But we don't want to do that, no - we expect a miracle pill for everything! What do you mean I should diet and excercise to control my diabetes? No! I want medicine! I don't want to alter my behavior! It's the way we use the health care system that is driving up costs! But we don't want to alter our behavior, NO! We want the government to provide us with the magic pill!
Great points. This is a big reason I think universal healthcare would not work. A system like that simply could not keep up with the demand.
Great points. This is a big reason I think universal healthcare would not work. A system like that simply could not keep up with the demand.
I don't think it will work either!
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.
) as it is a combination of provider charges and the cost of drugs in general, and oh yes, a minor thing like mortalities and morbidities. If a surgeon just would not charge $538 for a 15-minute consult, that might help, but he has to recover his malpractice insurance premiums from somewhere. And why the co-pay for pediatric Tamiflu would be $70 floors me, as well as the fact that there is no generic equivalent. Pharmaceutical companies should stop creating lifestyle drugs to treat ED, RLS, toenail fungus and botox or other wrinkle-reducing drugs, and recovering the R&D cost of that from drugs that people really need to live and get well, and instead should pay attention to improving drugs to treat orphan diseases (e.g. a lot of childhood cancers, etc.) and people need to attempt to get involved in controlling controllable factors that affect their health...like eating better and exercising. To accuse insurance companies alone of corporate greed is unfair, when they are not the deliverer of the healthcare, but instead is the payor. If people are under the impression that the push back to "limit" reimbursement is only on the consumers, it might please you to note that insurance companies do push back on providers as well, so that more of that can be channeled towards providing more for the consumer.
