- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you have supported a smaller healthcare reform act, specifically one that
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:03 pm to Rex
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:03 pm to Rex
To answer your question, no. The job if insurance is to determine your risk and then charge you accordingly. I would have been in favor of small medicaid expansion for some pre-existing conditions. I also would have been in support of making insurance an interstate commerce so that it could be sold across state lines. The increased competition would have lowered prices and improved service (i.e. covered more things).
0
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:13 pm to Rex
quote:
Well, you see, right there is an irreconcilable difference between a compassionate person and a non-compassionate one
Easy for you to say. Are YOU going to pay for this "compassion"?
Easy to be compassionate when it's other people's money helping you out.
No one here wants anyone to die or be without care. But sticking your head in the sand and whining about "feeling" and "compassion", still doesn't answer the question of who is going to pay for it.
I don't want anyone to die from lack of treatment, but I'm not naive enough to ignore the fact that medical care costs money. Insurance companies are a business, not a charity. Government is not a charity either. In both cases, I myself will pay higher premiums and higher taxes because of people who think insurance companies and government should be more "compassionate".
Not about being cold hearted, but understanding the reality of life and the way the world works.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:21 pm to dcrews
Damn I tryed to get him pissed but he didn't take the bait. You not fun anymore Rex
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:27 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
hird it will encourage the creation of subscription-based health care eliminating the overhead insurance companies create. This will be the end of health insurance companies. They may morph into subscriber companies but the insurance unknowns will disappear.
Fourth this will allow providers to have predictable streams of income. The impact of pre-existing conditions will be much smaller. The cost in health care is too a large extent fixed. For example, Our Lady of the Lake has similar day to day cost if they do an open heart surgery on a day as they do on a day they do not. It really does not add to their cost to take on a pre-existing condition in a subscription-based pricing system.
Intriguing idea. Really, why should insurance be involved in healthcare if people can deal directly with providers? And doctors continually bitch about dealing with insurance companies and Medicaid.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 9:32 pm to MMauler
quote:
I would tell them to go get a job with insurance
One of the largest contributors to spiraling healthcare costs and insurance costs was tying insurance to employment. fricked things up beginning in the late sixties or so and spiraled out of control after that.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:15 pm to Rex
quote:
No hypocrisy. I supported a law that mandated everybody buy insurance, including myself.
Because it was convenient for YOU. You weren't paying for health insurance before because you say it was too expensive, yet you admit you could've afforded it. It was just inconvenient for you.
Now you've directly benefited from a law forcing others to help pay for you, and you're all aboard because it is now convenient for you, all while ignoring the inconvenience it places on others.
If you can't see the fault in that then there is no hope.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:37 pm to VOR
quote:
Really, why should insurance be involved in healthcare if people can deal directly with providers? And doctors continually bitch about dealing with insurance companies and Medicaid.
Well how many ppl just have an extra $1000-$2000 laying around for when they break their leg getting out of the new pool at the SKC (maybe heady will pick up the tab) or an extra 25-50k when that heart attack hits or cancer strikes? I love the idea of an HSA but most ppl can't save money worth a hoot. However most can work a reasonably priced insurance premium into their budget.
Doctors bitch from having to deal with companies but they also have the freedom to not accept the insurance to the companies that are too much of a pain in the arse.
quote:
One of the largest contributors to spiraling healthcare costs and insurance costs was tying insurance to employment. fricked things up beginning in the late sixties or so and spiraled out of control after that.
I agree. Allow ind the same tax breaks and benefits that corporations get for offering insurance to their employees. That would allow for more freedom and choices that would drive down prices. Nothing is better for the consumer or in this case a patient than a good ole fashion price war.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:41 pm to rintintin
You are trying to reason with an unreasonable extremist.
He only understands sucking the tit until nothing more comes from it. Then demanding another tit because it's his right.
He only understands sucking the tit until nothing more comes from it. Then demanding another tit because it's his right.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:51 pm to Rex
quote:
merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?
Well I think healthcare reform was needed. I think the ACA has some problems that need to be fixed. That said, undoubtedly one of the greatest benefits of the ACA is the elimination of pre-existing illness exclusion. That provision alone has helped so many people get insurance when otherwise they could not.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:54 pm to wfeliciana
quote:States already had separate pools for people with PE conditions. They are gone now.
That said, undoubtedly one of the greatest benefits of the ACA is the elimination of pre-existing illness exclusion. That provision alone has helped so many people get insurance when otherwise they could not.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:54 pm to Rex
This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 7/27/14 at 10:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
States already had separate pools for people with PE conditions. They are gone now.
No, not all states Hail. I'd also imagine that pool insurance was incredibly expensive and limited in coverage.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 11:01 pm to wfeliciana
Well, it's not insurance wfel. The illegality of excluding already sick people is why most people see rises in premium costs.
A House GOP plan would have set aside billions in grants to the states so they could make their state pools more extensive and cheaper for people.
Instead, what we have are sick people flooding into insurance schemes, with illnesses that cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, which are being paid by healthy people's higher premiums.
People need to understand the definition of insurance. This law was a massive unfunded mandate.
A House GOP plan would have set aside billions in grants to the states so they could make their state pools more extensive and cheaper for people.
Instead, what we have are sick people flooding into insurance schemes, with illnesses that cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, which are being paid by healthy people's higher premiums.
People need to understand the definition of insurance. This law was a massive unfunded mandate.
This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 7/27/14 at 11:11 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Well, it's not insurance wfel.
I'm not sure whether they were technically or not. Most were called insurance plans and they came into existence due to a provision in the ACA, they were stopgaps until the effective date that insurance companies could no longer exclude due to pre-existing illnesses. But I do know you had to pay a premium, they often had huge deductibles, and often had limited coverage.
LINK
quote:
A House GOP plan would have set aside billions in grants to the states so they could make their state pools more extensive and cheaper for people.
I'm not aware of the specifics on that proposal or what happened to it. The ACA of course went way beyond just that issue. We'll have to see if the ACA is indeed unfunded. I don't think the ACA is perfect, far from it. It needs work.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 11:20 pm to wfeliciana
I agree about the ACA, wfel. My biggest gripe with it is that seems to make permanent the connection of employment with health insurance. I started a thread a day ago on my views on the stupid system we have of employer-provided insurance.
Another fatal flaw, not so much of Obamacare specifically, but of reform in general, is the refusal to address the supply of doctors. If there is a shortage of doctors, insurance might prove useless to some people. The other side of the equation though is that increasing reimbursement rates of medicaid and ACA plans is that it massively increases costs.
The most cited stat on American health care is that we pay 17% of GDP. As far as I know, ACA does jack shite about that.
I would be extremely happy if we go back to the days before WW2, when healthcare as GDP was less than 6%, and even poor people had regular access to the ton doctor.
Another fatal flaw, not so much of Obamacare specifically, but of reform in general, is the refusal to address the supply of doctors. If there is a shortage of doctors, insurance might prove useless to some people. The other side of the equation though is that increasing reimbursement rates of medicaid and ACA plans is that it massively increases costs.
The most cited stat on American health care is that we pay 17% of GDP. As far as I know, ACA does jack shite about that.
I would be extremely happy if we go back to the days before WW2, when healthcare as GDP was less than 6%, and even poor people had regular access to the ton doctor.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:20 am to Rex
That low is already in place, but no, it doesn't address any problems. When you do that you still artificially lower premiums, which leads to terrible wait times, and less doctors entering the field.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:35 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
People need to understand the definition of insurance. This law was a massive unfunded mandate.
BINGO!
And, it was in essence "a tax". Not in the normal sense of the word, but much like the Earned Income Credit, it is nothing more than disguised welfare hiding as a tax credit/subsidy.
Of course, that doesn't stop that lying SCUMBAG in the White House from claiming that he's never raised taxes on the middle class. He has, probably more than any other President in our history.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:18 am to WeeWee
quote:
Well how many ppl just have an extra $1000-$2000 laying around for when they break their leg getting out of the new pool at the SKC (maybe heady will pick up the tab) or an extra 25-50k when that heart attack hits or cancer strikes?
A lot of the cost of routine healthcare derives from the fact that there's a middle man involved, i.e., insurance bureaucrats. As some of the other older posters and I have discussed previously, when we were younger the only health insurance really necessary was for surgery and hospitalization. Those policies were affordable for pretty much everyone. Pre-existing conditions weren't much an issue. And people could afford to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions at point of service.
Now, to be fair, medicine has become more advanced and complicated, but I still think fee for service and patients dealing directly with healthcare providers would be a great improvement.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:33 am to Rex
Dear King Rex of Troll.
Your posts exceed the art of trolling.
May your reign be short and painful.
Your posts exceed the art of trolling.
May your reign be short and painful.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:34 am to VOR
quote:Pre-existing conditions weren't much an issue.
A lot of the cost of routine healthcare derives from the fact that there's a middle man involved, i.e., insurance bureaucrats. As some of the other older posters and I have discussed previously, when we were younger the only health [quote]insurance really necessary was for surgery and hospitalization. Those policies were affordable for pretty much everyone.
hmm like the one my brother had that was $85, $90, and $105 (it went up all 3 years he had it) that had a $1500 deductible and now those don't exist thanks to Obamacare.
quote:
Pre-existing conditions weren't much an issue. And people could afford to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions at point of service.
Alot of doctors used to give lower prices to ppl paying for their visits. They got the money at the time of visit and didn't have to deal with insurance companies. However, one of the thousands of regulations makes them charge the same price to everyone so that forces the cash ppl to pay more and its not as affordable. Also alot of pre-existing conditions can be improved with lifestyle changes (i.e eating better and exercise, stop smoking, unprotected sexwith your dog :cough: Rex :cough:). $$$ is the best motivator for change if insurance companies would reward those that improve their health (i.e 2 month premium free for every 20lbs you lose) then alot more ppl would get healthy.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News