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)
 
Old 09-17-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,741,964 times
Reputation: 3545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I understand your concerns, but isn't that why this legislation actually contains provisions prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or withdrawing coverage when someone is diagnosed with a long-term expensive condition. Insurance companies cherry-pick now, one of the reasons for the proposed reform is to at least make it harder for insurance companies to do this.
I still have my doubts about them. I don't trust them at all. They'll find some way to get around it.
They can still make it prohibitively expensive for people with pre-existing conditions and they'll have to go to the public option.
As for withdrawing coverage, they can say someone didn't fill out line 68i530 on form 284430832hjgh when applying for insurance and THAT'S why they aren't paying for the treatment.

 
Old 09-17-2009, 09:41 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,735,191 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
I still have my doubts about them. I don't trust them at all. They'll find some way to get around it.
They can still make it prohibitively expensive for people with pre-existing conditions and they'll have to go to the public option.
As for withdrawing coverage, they can say someone didn't fill out line 68i530 on form 284430832hjgh when applying for insurance and THAT'S why they aren't paying for the treatment.
I don't trust insurance companies, either. Which is why I think a public option is good. Maybe it will get a lot of the most expensive cases, people the insurance companies don't want. But it has an advantage. Insurance companies use their clout to control costs. Insurance companies maintain a reimbursement schedule, and public option will have even more clout to control costs on that end. And if public option gets the expensive cases, they are also positioned to get less expensive cases. In a mandatory insurance world, with lower premiums, they will get a sizeable share of younger people who are statistically healthier. Younger people who aren't established in careers, who are moving from job to job, who are moving from city to city, might find a lower-cost public option nationwide program more attractive than private insurance.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,987,503 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
I personally worry about the public option.
I think insurance companies will still cherry pick the healthiest individuals and the public option will take the sickest and will end up losing money.

Conservatives will point to it and say, "See the government can't do anything right! We told you the public option was a bad idea."

http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

http://njoneplan.files.wordpress.com...nd_facts-1.pdf
Actually HR 3200 didn't allow for Cherry Picking. So that woudln't have happened ...
 
Old 09-17-2009, 10:06 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,160,554 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm not advocating single-payer, so no, I'm not saying that government should be in charge of health care. I think a public option would be a good thing because it introduces the best competitor possible to reining in insurance premium costs. You should go back to your economics texts about new companies coming in and putting insurance companies out of business. The amount of regulation, the differences between states, the legal restrictions on insurance companies, the legal entitlements that are given to insurance companies is a complex system that is designed to promote longevity in the insurance market. Insurance companies have tremendous longevity because stability in the insurance market is a keystone to financial stability in economic markets. It's not a free market where someone can come along and put the old companies out of business.

As for your argument that we have at least a chance of reform with the insurance companies, when we have no chance with the government. What a bunch of hooey! The insurance companies are private companies, and they fight reform tooth and nail. Just read the paper about how much money, how many dollars taken from individuals in the form of insurance premiums, are not spent to pay healthcare bills, but are spent to lobby legislators to keep things exactly the way they are. We have multiple chances to change government. Every two years, we change our government to some degree in elections. The problem with the government isn't in its ability to reform. The problem with the government is in systematic denial of accountability that leads to bureaucratic growth. And yes, that's a problem, particulary in programs like healthcare. But it's a public problem that can be addressed much more readily than the public can address problems in the private companies that make up the insurance industry.

And yes, the public debt is alarming. But if the insurance industry can make billions of dollars of profit insuring people, why can't the public option break even? The public option isn't free. It will charge insurance premiums. It's the new insurance company you are advocating, but because it's publicly owned rather than privately, you join with the insurance companies to fight it tooth and nail.
I understand what you are saying, however governmental programs have historically stayed around after their usefulness is up, government just gets bigger (it certainly never gets smaller), and while public option (putting Constitutionality aside - I know I am fighting a losing battle with that, no matter how right believe myself to be) is not inherantly bad, it is a step towards government controlled health care. If we put into place public option, what is the next logical step? I want to prevent government controlled health care, and I see the public option as a step towards that, even if we don't see any more change for 20 years. I also do not want to develop another social security-like program. If anything should warn us about the downsides to government involvement, it is that! I doubt the public option will break even when the majority of government programs are losing money right now. The government has historically proven itself to be unable to run programs with any semblance of efficiency, and I very much doubt the public option would be profitable 20 years from now.

We need to think of a long term, sustainable plan, even if that means we struggle more in the next 5, 10 even 15 years. Controlling cost and curbing debt are essential right now.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,987,503 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I understand what you are saying, however governmental programs have historically stayed around after their usefulness is up, government just gets bigger (it certainly never gets smaller), and while public option (putting Constitutionality aside - I know I am fighting a losing battle with that, no matter how right believe myself to be) is not inherantly bad, it is a step towards government controlled health care. If we put into place public option, what is the next logical step? I want to prevent government controlled health care, and I see the public option as a step towards that, even if we don't see any more change for 20 years. I also do not want to develop another social security-like program. If anything should warn us about the downsides to government involvement, it is that! I doubt the public option will break even when the majority of government programs are losing money right now. The government has historically proven itself to be unable to run programs with any semblance of efficiency, and I very much doubt the public option would be profitable 20 years from now.

We need to think of a long term, sustainable plan, even if that means we struggle more in the next 5, 10 even 15 years. Controlling cost and curbing debt are essential right now.
I for one would like an option available where MORE of the money i pay actually goes to medicines..

and not an overly exorbitant $124M/year compensation to ONE CEO (United Health), or to government lobbying (ie: buying the politicians right out from under us with OUR money) at the tune of $700K a DAY that the industry was spending at one point to defeat health care reform!!

I don't care much for paying out someone else's dividends either.. why should someone who sits at home doing nothing for medicine make a dime off my illness? or even lack thereof.

How do you curb the costs unless you basically FORCE the hand of the insurance companies to trim their excess?

A government option would give them something to think about in the ways of where and how and how much they spend their money in order to compete!!

I want a public option if only to shake the insurance companies down to reality!!!
 
Old 09-17-2009, 10:25 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,160,554 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I for one would like an option available where MORE of the money i pay actually goes to medicines..

and not an overly exorbitant $124M/year compensation to ONE CEO (United Health), or to government lobbying (ie: buying the politicians right out from under us with OUR money) at the tune of $700K a DAY that the industry was spending at one point to defeat health care reform!!

I don't care much for paying out someone else's dividends either.. why should someone who sits at home doing nothing for medicine make a dime off my illness? or even lack thereof.

How do you curb the costs unless you basically FORCE the hand of the insurance companies to trim their excess?

A government option would give them something to think about in the ways of where and how and how much they spend their money in order to compete!!

I want a public option if only to shake the insurance companies down to reality!!!
Are you willing to trade inefficiency by an insurance company (which has a change of being replaced by a competitor) with inefficiency and waste by the government (which has no chance of being replaced)?

I understand your point, however giving up that freedom seems like a heavy price to pay if you simply want to 'stick it' to insurance companies.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:02 AM
 
3,353 posts, read 1,412,118 times
Reputation: 1088
Default Congress`s powers are limited and defined

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
The government is at the federal level allowed to enact laws and a system of healthcare for the general welfare.

To the best of my knowledge, you are expressing a personal opinion which is not in harmony with the documented debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified. I have quoted from these debates expressing our founding fathers feelings and intentions with regard to the phrase “general welfare” in POST NO 750.



Do you have supportive documentation to establish it was the intentions of the people of the united states when framing and ratifying our Constitution, to grant a power to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate their personal health care needs? I only ask this question because the powers granted to Constitution have been limited and defined and do not appear to include the power you seem to assure posters in this thread exists. How do you arrive at you conclusion?



As to Congress’s powers being limited and defined under our constitutionally limited system of government, our SCOTUS has stated in crystal clear language:


“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.



Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.




If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.


Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. “ SEE MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)



I might also add that Federalist Paper No. 45 places the power you refer to within those retained by the various States and the people therein:



The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”



Also see the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.



JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,987,503 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Are you willing to trade inefficiency by an insurance company (which has a change of being replaced by a competitor) with inefficiency and waste by the government (which has no chance of being replaced)?

I understand your point, however giving up that freedom seems like a heavy price to pay if you simply want to 'stick it' to insurance companies.

There is no real competition in the insurance industry.. their inefficiency and waste is simply passed on to the consumer in higher costs.

Unless you really feel that paying ONE PERSON within the company $124M year in compensation is efficient!!!!!

and the government option works quite well for others in other countries.. it's not a failure. . i'ts not perfect..but it's not a failure.

If you have both public and private they can work well together.... just look at the NHS.. it works quite well.. AND there system is even different in that EVERYONE is covered by the NHS with private to supplement or provide above and beyond if they so choose.

A public option as we speak of it today is NOT about EVERYONE being covered under it. Only those that choose to purchase into that government run insurance option.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Are you willing to trade inefficiency by an insurance company (which has a change of being replaced by a competitor) with inefficiency and waste by the government (which has no chance of being replaced)?
While I wouldn't go far enough to complain about waste and inefficiencies, I prefer more options, not less. And one that is for non-profit, gets my vote. You will have choice to pay into the bank account of fat cats anyway. So, stop worrying.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:40 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,160,554 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
While I wouldn't go far enough to complain about waste and inefficiencies, I prefer more options, not less. And one that is for non-profit, gets my vote. You will have choice to pay into the bank account of fat cats anyway. So, stop worrying.
If you have so much class envy towards the wealthy, why don't you stop complaining and get a job with an insurance company? Work to put policies in place to lower the pay for top execs. Work to fix the problem.

You sound so bitter towards the rich that it amazes me.

I would take my chances with the problems/greed in the free market over the waste/inefficiency/laziness in government any day.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 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