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.
Because there is a discrepancy between the way Medicare works and the way most insurance plans work. For one thing, Medicare cannot negotiate on behalf of its insureds for better prescription prices. We need to close that gap, and coopt the advantages of both types of plans.
"Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses... Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.
And before you say it, although some of the debt was due to being out of work and lost income, the bigger issue is that during that time, insurance coverage is often DROPPED.
We've seen the study numerous times, relinking it wont change the facts that people file bankruptcy due to loss of INCOME..
Did you even read the report on how these were counted? 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills.
Because there is a discrepancy between the way Medicare works and the way most insurance plans work. For one thing, Medicare cannot negotiate on behalf of its insureds for better prescription prices. We need to close that gap, and coopt the advantages of both types of plans.
"Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses... Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.
And before you say it, although some of the debt was due to being out of work and lost income, the bigger issue is that during that time, insurance coverage is often DROPPED.
And once again, instead of fixing what is broke, we just absorb it all with a new government program.... swell. I'm glad you are fine with all this crap.
We've seen the study numerous times, relinking it wont change the facts that people file bankruptcy due to loss of INCOME..
Really? Because no one has posted it in this thread. Try reading the studies that are posted before assuming you've seen them before. It really doesn't help your clout to announce that you ignore facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Did you even read the report on how these were counted? 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills.
Yes, and I've done other research. For example:
"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com
Do your homework. I can't hold your hand the entire way.
An employer can just pay a tax and then make the employee deal with the hastles of getting their own care, be it public or their own private, they are out of the loop. When you said an employer is not eligable for the public option you were wrong. All they have to do is cancel their current policies in place and pay the tax, they absolutely can go to the public option..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth
No, they can't. Their employees can, but once the employer drops private coverage, the employer has lost a bargaining chip that attracts employees, because they are no longer involved in the health insurance game in any way, shape, or form. Thus, the corporation does NOT have a public option.
Do you really think individuals will care about a lack of "corporate" coverage if they can just pickup the phone and sign up for a "government" option? All I'd care about at that point is pay. Is my pay sufficient enough to pay my bills and pay for the NEW tax.
I love this new liberal argument that it wasnt an incentive before the public care to offer care but now that a public option might pass, its all of a sudden an incentive to offer care.
Are you telling me the government option will be inferior to the private options?
Really? Because no one has posted it in this thread. Try reading the studies that are posted before assuming you've seen them before. It really doesn't help your clout to announce that you ignore facts.
Do you really think individuals will care about a lack of "corporate" coverage if they can just pickup the phone and sign up for a "government" option? All I'd care about at that point is pay. Is my pay sufficient enough to pay my bills and pay for the NEW tax.
I love this new liberal argument that it wasnt an incentive before the public care to offer care but now that a public option might pass, its all of a sudden an incentive to offer care.
Are you telling me the government option will be inferior to the private options?
The incentive has always been there - it is an employee benefit. The reform aims to help those who are self-employed, or contractors, or work for companies that are too small or too part-time oriented to offer coverage.
I am not saying the public option will be inferior to the private option per se, but the best reform will make the current employer plans more attractive to those for whom they are available, as well as to the employers themselves.
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.