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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Florida
1,313 posts, read 1,547,817 times
Reputation: 462

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Hmmm..Boehner and other Republicans in Congress agreed they should be removed entirely...... Well, those things are in the bill in bi-partisan fashion, and for me those are the two big ones. I don't want to lose my house and 401K if I or my wife get sick. And the 3rd big one is the country wide insurance-trade pool. So, all the big issues are covered on the bill and are bi-partisan.
I must be one of those evil-protect-big-business Republicans, because I don't feel insurance companies should be forced to absorb all of the risk of the policy-holders. They need some way to defray their costs. They shouldn't have to sell the same policy for the same cost to everyone.
While we're going big on government involvement, we may as well throw in some incentives for medical students. We're going to need alot of new nurses and doctors to treat all these new patients.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,763 posts, read 39,630,520 times
Reputation: 8243
would all the congress people like to be part of the new so called healthcare reform??? are they willing to give up their government run healthcare benefits to opt into the very plan that they voted for? I think that part of their voting should be that they are also voting to give up their current healthcare benefits and be FORCED into purchasing this BS healthcare under penalty of fines via their stupid mandate! harumph!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,804,394 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Did you not see the upward spike in insurance company stocks on Monday, just after Reid got his 60 votes? The people that are about to make the insurance companies richer are the democrats.

So stop this game that republicans are doing it, when its plain to see, just ask Howard Dean.
You are exactly right, the short term profitability of Health Ins Cos is very good. Ther share prices were low due to the fears of what may be in the bill. Actually I have some stock in that area, but I can assure you that I am not looking at that for a long term investment. The Ins Cos are providing funds to both Dems and Repubs and have been for some time. So our representatives know where their bread is buttered, so it will be a while yet for this system to change. But it is inevitable that the system has to change, this bill is just a small step in that direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:46 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,893 posts, read 18,393,947 times
Reputation: 6465
Do you really think that it is going to be fixed any time SOON! Who exactly is going to fix it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:49 PM
 
1,329 posts, read 3,533,488 times
Reputation: 989
I think price discrimination should be banned - i.e. health insurance companies (and Medicare and Medicaid) should not get a better deal on medical procedures than individuals paying cash, and group policies that provide better rates for corporate employees should be banned. That would level the playing field without a need for socialized health care. The problem today is that people buying their own insurance are simultaneously subsidizing Medicaid, Medicare and corporate health insurance programs. This is why the little guy can't afford comprehensive health insurance - he is paying for everyone else's "discounts", government and private sector alike.

The option of paying for health insurance with pre-tax dollars is currently only available to employees whose employers provide group health insurance. This discriminates against individuals who buy their own health insurance, whether they are self-employed or don't have the option of contributing to an employer-provided group health plan. This tax preference for employer-provided group health plans ought to be abolished. Either everyone gets to pay with pre-tax dollars, or no one does. Under the current tax system, the little guy, once again, gets to pay for everyone else's tax subsidy.

Another problem with the current health system is that individuals can't buy basic catastrophic health insurance if they live in certain states (New York, California) that mandate Viagra, birth control pills and psychiatric coverage be included in any basic health insurance plan. New York state law prohibits insurance that does not include this coverage from being sold in the Empire State. Federal laws should be drawn up to make such state laws null and void, so that individuals in these states who want to buy basic catastrophic coverage can do so.

But all of the above is moot now, given the passage of the bill. The little guy who buys his own insurance is still subsidizing people who participate through company-provided health plans, because he is buying with after-tax dollars whereas they are buying with pre-tax dollars. The little guy who can't afford the insurance and pays the tax penalty is still subsidizing the haves who participate through Medicaid, Medicare and employer-provided health plans - both through the tax penalty and the huge medical bills he faces because hospitals "discount" services to federal and corporate entities and inflate his tab to cover those "discounts". New Yorkers will continue to pay more for health insurance than residents of less regulated states that don't require coverage Viagra, birth control pills or psychiatric care in all health insurance plans sold to residents.

Assuming this reform bill passes without significant changes, and all individuals are required to buy health insurance on pain of tax penalties, then insurance companies should be required to take and keep all comers, regardless of their medical history, or pre-existing conditions. Does the bill do so? I don't know...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,264 posts, read 36,984,230 times
Reputation: 16380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
I lol'd.

I don't think that term means what you think it means.
Yes, and no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,882 posts, read 21,972,634 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
The bill that will be signed is a far cry from socialized medicine. Medicare is a closer example of socialized medicine. To be sure there are many things that need to be corrected in Medicare, but when you see that the overhead administrative cost of Medicare is less than 2% and then see that private Ins overhead cost is 30% or greater, I think there is some obvious benefit to the Medicare platform. Down the road, this country will realize that it is in the best interest of all of us to remove the profit incentive from the care side of our health problems. The profit incentive should be in the innovation and prevention side of the issue. The care side should be a cost plus a reasonable and controlled profit system, similar to public utilities.
So why is Medicare in the red and why does it have $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

One reason insurance companies have so much overhead is they need to show a profit, and since they cannot sell across state lines they have to sift thru 50+ different sets of regulations, which requires offices and managers for each state.

Another reason health care insurance costs so much is each state demands all insurance must cover specific needs, even if the people buying the insurance do not want it.

We could also pass TORT reform to lower the costs of malpractice insurance liabilities. Between the facility, the doctors and nurses your local hospital probably pays tens of millions a year in malpractice insurance.

We can find ways to streamline drug research so it does not cost a billion dollars and ten years to design new drugs.

We can stop funding federal scholarships to colleges that keep raising tuition rates double to quadruple the rate of inflation. all we are doing is feeding the monster. the higher the greedy SOBs in education raise their tuition, the higher the politicians want to raise the scholarships. Rinse, repeat.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,707,565 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Here are four simple steps that would help reform the current system:
  1. Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
  2. Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
  3. Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
  4. End junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
For more information about some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, see the following links below:Now when others claim Republicans have only obstructed the process to reform health care insurance, you will know without any doubt that they are lying.
This is the best way to control costs and expand access with minimal cost to tax payers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,264 posts, read 36,984,230 times
Reputation: 16380
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
would all the congress people like to be part of the new so called healthcare reform??? are they willing to give up their government run healthcare benefits to opt into the very plan that they voted for? I think that part of their voting should be that they are also voting to give up their current healthcare benefits and be FORCED into purchasing this BS healthcare under penalty of fines via their stupid mandate! harumph!
That's an excellent point, and provides a clear answer. The simple fact that the healthcare bill won't apply to the members of Congress and their families, as well as the president and his family, is a solid indication that it's a bad idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:56 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,512,957 times
Reputation: 1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Here are four simple steps that would help reform the current system:
  1. Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
  2. Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
  3. Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
  4. End junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
For more information about some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, see the following links below:Now when others claim Republicans have only obstructed the process to reform health care insurance, you will know without any doubt that they are lying.
So 2000 to 2006 they didnt why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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