Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Simple summary of health care
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
Simple summary of health care
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 18 2009, 01:26 PM (817 Views)
Mr Gray Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM Post #91
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jul 13 2009, 09:05 AM
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 11:24 AM
No matter which way you look at it, it has to be paid for, and I just can't figure out who Eel wants to cover it?
You are already paying for it. I am already paying for it. That is the point you keep forgetting. What we have does not work. It is broken and built on a broken model. An insurance policy that covers amputations of limbs for circulatory problems in diabetics, but will not pay for real time glucose testing supplies to prevent the need for the amputation, is part of the problem.

My daughter’s real time glucose sensors cost about $175 a month. They are not covered by most insurance companies. That is $2100 a year. In the year before she started on these sensors, she had two trips to the emergency room for low blood sugar. The average cost for the ambulance ride and the emergency room visit, paid for by insurance, was $3700 dollars. So in essence, if the real time sensors allowed each diabetic one less trip to the emergency room per year, it would save the company money. In that time her A1C 7.3 to 6.1. As has been documented by clinical research, a diabetic with an A1C that averages under 6.5 for the long haul suffers close to the norm for the population at large for circulatory problems later in life. That is HUGE. You speak at a 40000 foot view of these problems, and do not take the time to look at specifics. Yes, people expect to be able to charge the health insurance companies for health related costs.

Am I supposed to not charge my car insurance after a car wreck just so the insurance company continues to be able to keep everyone’s rates low? Insurance rates rose in the US post 9/11. Should the owners of the World Trade Center have eaten the $4.5 billion claim they had against the insurance companies to keep your rates low? Insurance exists to spread the risk. We all buy into our policies to lower the financial impact of jetliner striking any one of our buildings across the biggest possible cross section of the population. The Insurance companies are not eating any costs, they are passing them along. In public health dollars, what is not paid for by insurance companies and those with money is paid for with your taxes. You claim private companies always do a better job than the government in handling these types of things, yet you seem unwilling to give them the task to solve. We do not have a health care problem in the US. We have the best health care there is. We have an insurance problem.
eel, so you have a problem with the insurance companies and the way they operate. In the example you used, they are actually operating so inefficiently that it hurting their profits. I get that, and I agree with you. The difference is, I don't want to go whining to the government to fix the operating flaws of a private company in a private industry. You do.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jul 13 2009, 02:11 PM Post #92
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM
The difference is, I don't want to go whining to the government to fix the operating flaws of a private company in a private industry. You do.
So, your losing argument above ignored, back to my original statement in this or some other healthcare thread. It would lower the cost of healthcare in the United States if everyone were required to have all inclusive health care insurance for medical necessary treatment. It is hugely unpopular, but...

1. If everyone pays for the healthcare they receive, you cost per visit would shrink accordingly.
2. If everyone were insured they would be more likely to obtain healthcare before problems became emergent, and expensive.
3. Healthcare decisions would once again be made by Doctors and Healthcare professionals rather than accountants.

The downside is forcing people to insure themselves, and the definition of medical necessity.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 13 2009, 03:01 PM Post #93
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jul 13 2009, 02:11 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM
The difference is, I don't want to go whining to the government to fix the operating flaws of a private company in a private industry. You do.
So, your losing argument above ignored, back to my original statement in this or some other healthcare thread. It would lower the cost of healthcare in the United States if everyone were required to have all inclusive health care insurance for medical necessary treatment. It is hugely unpopular, but...

1. If everyone pays for the healthcare they receive, you cost per visit would shrink accordingly.
2. If everyone were insured they would be more likely to obtain healthcare before problems became emergent, and expensive.
3. Healthcare decisions would once again be made by Doctors and Healthcare professionals rather than accountants.

The downside is forcing people to insure themselves, and the definition of medical necessity.
how is that a "losing argument"? It is the essence of our disagreement. You want government intervention and additional loss of freedoms in the case of healthcare, and whether you will admit it or not, it is because in this particular instance, it benefits you. That is the problem with this country...people will champion unconstitutional causes so long as they will personally benefit them....politicians use those issues to get re-elected and trample the constitution in the name of the "will of the people".

You are against cap & trade and see it as a huge potential blow to our country, as I do, however there are countless amounts of people and companies that will benefit from cap & trade legislation and therefore will champion the concept regardless of it's impact on you or me. That is not how this country was intended to operate, as as long as people put their own interests above the overall benefits of freedom, we will continue our decline.

BTW, smoking bans are a smaller but dead-on example of this principle as well.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jul 13 2009, 03:46 PM Post #94
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 03:01 PM
eelbor
Jul 13 2009, 02:11 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM
The difference is, I don't want to go whining to the government to fix the operating flaws of a private company in a private industry. You do.
So, your losing argument above ignored, back to my original statement in this or some other healthcare thread. It would lower the cost of healthcare in the United States if everyone were required to have all inclusive health care insurance for medical necessary treatment. It is hugely unpopular, but...

1. If everyone pays for the healthcare they receive, you cost per visit would shrink accordingly.
2. If everyone were insured they would be more likely to obtain healthcare before problems became emergent, and expensive.
3. Healthcare decisions would once again be made by Doctors and Healthcare professionals rather than accountants.

The downside is forcing people to insure themselves, and the definition of medical necessity.
how is that a "losing argument"? It is the essence of our disagreement. You want government intervention and additional loss of freedoms in the case of healthcare, and whether you will admit it or not, it is because in this particular instance, it benefits you. That is the problem with this country...people will champion unconstitutional causes so long as they will personally benefit them....politicians use those issues to get re-elected and trample the constitution in the name of the "will of the people".

You are against cap & trade and see it as a huge potential blow to our country, as I do, however there are countless amounts of people and companies that will benefit from cap & trade legislation and therefore will champion the concept regardless of it's impact on you or me. That is not how this country was intended to operate, as as long as people put their own interests above the overall benefits of freedom, we will continue our decline.

BTW, smoking bans are a smaller but dead-on example of this principle as well.
Your assumption, flawed that it may be, is that there is freedom of choice in your insurance provider. This is a fallacy. You have the option of picking whom you purchase your auto from, or who issues your mortgage if you still have one, and what store you buy your food at. Americans have no such choice when it comes to health insurance. Because your insurance is tied to your employer there are no free market forces operating the nation's health care insurance industry. Some of the most important financial decisions in anyone's life are being made by the employer, instead of the consumer(the employee). I understand this works for you because you are an employer, but it sucks for the employee. See your discussions with Brum. About how ungrateful he is acting when it is an employer provided benefit. Bullshit. I work my ass off for my company. Their continued existence is owed to people like me making the company hundreds of millions of dollars annually. So here I am paying a large amount of money for a policy my company owns. I can not take it with me if I choose to go to another employer, or even keep my policy for more than 18 months if I leave the company. You want to protect an industry that is clearly not free market, as if it were, and that does not wash. You do not want equality under the law for insurance companies; you want them to continue to receive preferential treatment under the law. Why?

If Congress ever changes the tax treatment of health insurance and creates direct and individual tax relief for individuals and families, real consumer choice will once again enter the insurance market. You are against socialized medicine, I get that. I am against it also. However, you are blind to the changes that need to happen on the state and federal level to allow the health insurance industry to avoid having that thrust upon you. Until free market forces once again come into your ability to choose insurance, it will remain hopelessly broken and those worst affected will gravitate to the promise of universal healthcare. I understand you do not want to force insurance companies to cover medically necessary procedures. Fine, then pass the laws that allow me to buy the insurance I want and need that covers these things at the same rate "Employers" get, or give me a tax benefit to be able to afford it. Allow me to take this policy I like with me from job to job, and you will get better continuity of healthcare and a happier workforce. Insurance companies need to answer to the actual consumer, not the employers, to change for the better.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 16 2009, 06:37 PM Post #95
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jul 13 2009, 03:46 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 03:01 PM
eelbor
Jul 13 2009, 02:11 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM
The difference is, I don't want to go whining to the government to fix the operating flaws of a private company in a private industry. You do.
So, your losing argument above ignored, back to my original statement in this or some other healthcare thread. It would lower the cost of healthcare in the United States if everyone were required to have all inclusive health care insurance for medical necessary treatment. It is hugely unpopular, but...

1. If everyone pays for the healthcare they receive, you cost per visit would shrink accordingly.
2. If everyone were insured they would be more likely to obtain healthcare before problems became emergent, and expensive.
3. Healthcare decisions would once again be made by Doctors and Healthcare professionals rather than accountants.

The downside is forcing people to insure themselves, and the definition of medical necessity.
how is that a "losing argument"? It is the essence of our disagreement. You want government intervention and additional loss of freedoms in the case of healthcare, and whether you will admit it or not, it is because in this particular instance, it benefits you. That is the problem with this country...people will champion unconstitutional causes so long as they will personally benefit them....politicians use those issues to get re-elected and trample the constitution in the name of the "will of the people".

You are against cap & trade and see it as a huge potential blow to our country, as I do, however there are countless amounts of people and companies that will benefit from cap & trade legislation and therefore will champion the concept regardless of it's impact on you or me. That is not how this country was intended to operate, as as long as people put their own interests above the overall benefits of freedom, we will continue our decline.

BTW, smoking bans are a smaller but dead-on example of this principle as well.
Your assumption, flawed that it may be, is that there is freedom of choice in your insurance provider. This is a fallacy. You have the option of picking whom you purchase your auto from, or who issues your mortgage if you still have one, and what store you buy your food at. Americans have no such choice when it comes to health insurance. Because your insurance is tied to your employer there are no free market forces operating the nation's health care insurance industry. Some of the most important financial decisions in anyone's life are being made by the employer, instead of the consumer(the employee). I understand this works for you because you are an employer, but it sucks for the employee. See your discussions with Brum. About how ungrateful he is acting when it is an employer provided benefit. Bullshit. I work my ass off for my company. Their continued existence is owed to people like me making the company hundreds of millions of dollars annually. So here I am paying a large amount of money for a policy my company owns. I can not take it with me if I choose to go to another employer, or even keep my policy for more than 18 months if I leave the company. You want to protect an industry that is clearly not free market, as if it were, and that does not wash. You do not want equality under the law for insurance companies; you want them to continue to receive preferential treatment under the law. Why?

If Congress ever changes the tax treatment of health insurance and creates direct and individual tax relief for individuals and families, real consumer choice will once again enter the insurance market. You are against socialized medicine, I get that. I am against it also. However, you are blind to the changes that need to happen on the state and federal level to allow the health insurance industry to avoid having that thrust upon you. Until free market forces once again come into your ability to choose insurance, it will remain hopelessly broken and those worst affected will gravitate to the promise of universal healthcare. I understand you do not want to force insurance companies to cover medically necessary procedures. Fine, then pass the laws that allow me to buy the insurance I want and need that covers these things at the same rate "Employers" get, or give me a tax benefit to be able to afford it. Allow me to take this policy I like with me from job to job, and you will get better continuity of healthcare and a happier workforce. Insurance companies need to answer to the actual consumer, not the employers, to change for the better.
so, would you be in favor of allowing an individual to choose his/her insurance provider and still allow it to be tax deductible? I would, and that is a resolution to your problem that I think we could/should both agree on. Here are 2 more ideas that I have found regarding improving healthcare in the US that you might like.

3: Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.

4: Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles. That, more than anything, would make insurance premiums more affordable for Americans who fear the financial consequences of health misfortune.

Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:44 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy