- 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: What’s a real conservative solution to fix healthcare?
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:47 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:47 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
exactly why having one entity provide a service, one get a service, and a third pay for it will always 'eff up the machine.
This model has also caused so much animosity between individuals and health insurance companies as evidenced by the execution of the UHC CEO and many reactions from the general public.
This post was edited on 12/13/24 at 10:47 pm
2
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This model has also caused so much animosity between individuals and health insurance companies as evidenced by the execution of the UHC CEO and many reactions from the general public.
Sure, just look at your last few posts. I mean, I know you're not advocating killing anyone, I'm not saying that.
But it's a system that breeds feelings of justification at all three points of that triangle.
Insurance companies feel justified in their shenanigans because the perceive the providers chronically attempting to overbill (which they do).
The providers feel justified in overbilling because they perceive the insurance companies chronically resorting to infuriating tactics to try to claw money back (which is a much bigger problem than simply denying the claims in the first place)—which they do.
The patients feel justified in commissioning care that they might not necessarily need just because they resent the BS games created by the other two.
It's a system designed to balloon costs.
And again, for the record, I'm not criticizing you for going to see the doctor now that your deductible has been met. You'd be foolish to not do that given the way the system forces work.
But your emotions are clearly articulated even if they are tongue in cheek...you don't care if you end up costing the insurance company more money than is absolutely necessary (like you would if you were paying for it) because they've taken your money in premiums and given you the run-around.
All predictable given that system and that model.
And it wouldn't matter if it was UHC or Medicare for all. Again, the root of all evil is the triangle. The rest are just minor details.
This post was edited on 12/13/24 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:59 pm to 4cubbies
75 % is media feeding it
Not saying that there's an outrage because I have my story but to the point that people are killing each other it's just a media frenzy
Not saying that there's an outrage because I have my story but to the point that people are killing each other it's just a media frenzy
Posted on 12/13/24 at 11:02 pm to OWLFAN86
How is the media feeding it
Posted on 12/13/24 at 11:09 pm to Tunasntigers92
It's a big distraction all the coverage the sensationalism TMZ news ,,
its been the latest version of porn for the masses and real news gets ignored
This assassination there's going to be three movies made about it because it's entertainment to at least 75% of the public
its been the latest version of porn for the masses and real news gets ignored
This assassination there's going to be three movies made about it because it's entertainment to at least 75% of the public
This post was edited on 12/13/24 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 12/13/24 at 11:17 pm to OWLFAN86
And I'm not saying it was a conspiracy or that someone was behind it it was just another case of a mentally deranged person pulling off a murder in thinking they're justified in it
after the four years that we've had with COVID and the mental health issues that we have legitimized in this nation the tranny school shooter and this come from the same place
after the four years that we've had with COVID and the mental health issues that we have legitimized in this nation the tranny school shooter and this come from the same place
Posted on 12/13/24 at 11:20 pm to OWLFAN86
Do you think there will be more assassination attempts on high targets like this
Posted on 12/13/24 at 11:35 pm to troyt37
quote:
Competition.
/thread
This post was edited on 12/14/24 at 7:28 am
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:16 am to RaoulDuke504
Quit spending hundreds of billions of dollars on drug related incarceration and use the money to help people in need.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:18 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
What’s a real conservative solution to fix healthcare?
The first step would be to target all those involved in disability scams
Posted on 12/14/24 at 4:23 am to 4cubbies
quote:Well first off, that's a false or carelessly worded premise.
Why?
The current model excludes the vast majority of part-time employees from insurance eligibility.
Right?
Part-time employees are just as eligible for ACA plans as anyone else.
Further, the ACA plans for which they are likely eligible are highly subsidized by those of us "excluded from insurance eligibility" (to use your terminology). Put in less hyperbolic terms, while those of us subsidizing that individual's costs are ourselves ineligible for subsidized coverage, we are still quite eligible for coverage.
So your complaint is not one of coverage ineligibility. Your complaint is that part-time workers may not receive options for an employer subsidized health insurance plan in addition to their subsidized ACA options. But, even in that sense, it is not a reasonable complaint.
Healthcare insurance plans represent a fixed cost regardless of employee payscale. So it follows, the lower the payscale comp, the higher the proportionate cost of benefits to the employer. That means, given your premise that everyone receive a health insurance benefit, de facto compensation (salary + insurance) to part-time employees would far outstrip that of their full time colleagues.
---
Let's plug some numbers to illustrate:
Full-time employee:
Salary = $50K/yr ($25/hr x 2000hrs/yr) + a $12.5K insurance benefit, bringing the total package to $62.5K/yr or $31.25/hr.
Part-time employee:
Salary = $12.5K/yr ($25/hr x 500hrs/yr) + a $12.5K insurance benefit, bringing the total package to $25K/yr or $50/hr.
See the problem?
Posted on 12/14/24 at 5:06 am to deeprig9
quote:"Tied to" is Cubbies terminology.
My homeowner's insurance isn't tied to my employment.
My renter's insurance wasn't tied to my employment.
My auto insurance isn't tied to my employment.
My boat insurance isn't tied to my employment.
My life insurance isn't tied to my employment.
My pet insurance isn't tied to my employment.
Why is it only health insurance that is tied to employment? And why is it necessary for employers to "provide" it?
What she's referring to is health insurance being offered by employers as a benefit. You list a litany of other items which basically interrelate only through the term "insurance."
Why do employers offer health insurance?
There are several reasons:
1) Insurance companies are willing to discount rates to win contracts for coverage of large numbers of individuals in a company. So the employer provides a full-valued product to company employees at a reduced internal cost.
2) It is a desirable perk for most employees.
3) It theoretically contributes to workplace wellness and productivity.
Those elements don't apply to boat, or pet insurance. But if employers saw any of your other listed categories as something which could attract better employees at a lower cost, they'd toss them in too.
E.g., Execs at car dealerships often receive discounts on auto leases or purchases based on the same principle. Store employees may receive discounts on purchases at their store. Etc. Like health insurance, each are attractive perks deemed to cost less for the employer than the value they impart to the employee.
In each of those instances, the employer no longer has interest in provision once the employee leaves or is terminated.
My suggestion is a person who loses employment should be able to piggy-back, at his cost, on to the employers plan, ad infinitum, until he is re-employed elsewhere. COBRA does that (sort of) for 18 months. IMO, the 18 months should be extended until the individual is once again employed with health coverage options.
Insofar as "tied to" implies lost employment "ties to" losing insurance, that would be a solution .
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:02 am to RaoulDuke504
Get rid of the tax deduction for health insurance. If your company gives you health insurance you have to write a check to the government for income tax covering that benefit. That will virtually end company-provided health insurance, and workers will receive huge increases in their salaries to compensate for that.
The Federal Government would then offer health insurance vouchers to low income people, and pass a law that requires every person to have basic health insurance, which covers catastrophic care.
They would have to mandate that insurers spread the premium costs out so that the old and infirm could afford insurance. And I’d like to see the government form regional Boards to review claims so that insurance companies are not rejecting legitimate claims for profit. These Boards would be made up of 1/3 health insurance executives, 1/3 medical industry executives and 1/3 elected tribunes (maybe this should be more than 1/3; experiment here).
These basic rules would get the government mostly out of the health care business and limit government roles to issuing vouchers and policing the insurers. And it would allow people to buy insurance that was suitable to their needs. A healthy, young person who eats right and exercises could get catastrophic-only insurance. This would be super cheap except for the addition of the subsidization of the old and infirm.
Clarification: I realize that a “real conservative” answer is to only do what is in the first paragraph above. But that is impossible politically, ergo the rest.
The Federal Government would then offer health insurance vouchers to low income people, and pass a law that requires every person to have basic health insurance, which covers catastrophic care.
They would have to mandate that insurers spread the premium costs out so that the old and infirm could afford insurance. And I’d like to see the government form regional Boards to review claims so that insurance companies are not rejecting legitimate claims for profit. These Boards would be made up of 1/3 health insurance executives, 1/3 medical industry executives and 1/3 elected tribunes (maybe this should be more than 1/3; experiment here).
These basic rules would get the government mostly out of the health care business and limit government roles to issuing vouchers and policing the insurers. And it would allow people to buy insurance that was suitable to their needs. A healthy, young person who eats right and exercises could get catastrophic-only insurance. This would be super cheap except for the addition of the subsidization of the old and infirm.
Clarification: I realize that a “real conservative” answer is to only do what is in the first paragraph above. But that is impossible politically, ergo the rest.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:04 am to Penrod
quote:
and workers will receive huge increases in their salaries to compensate for that.
What makes you think that's necessarily true?
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:08 am to Penrod
quote:
The Federal Government would then offer health insurance vouchers to low income people, and pass a law that requires every person to have basic health insurance, which covers catastrophic care.
They would have to mandate that insurers spread the premium costs out so that the old and infirm could afford insurance. And I’d like to see the government form regional Boards to review claims so that insurance companies are not rejecting legitimate claims for profit. These Boards would be made up of 1/3 health insurance executives, 1/3 medical industry executives and 1/3 elected tribunes (maybe this should be more than 1/3; experiment here).
quote:
These basic rules would get the government mostly out of the health care business
What?
You just conceived of a system in which the government would directly tell insurance companies what claims they had to pay.
To the degree that they actually had the power to do that and did it, insurance companies would opt out of business. You just governed insurance companies out of existence.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:17 am to Privateer 2007
quote:
Bring in foreign physicians and nurses.
Wow! You got 44 UPs and 6 DVs for bringing in immigrants to take American jobs.
I want to add that I am not disagreeing with you; I’m just shocked that this goes against the tenor of this board generally.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:22 am to Penrod
quote:
I want to add that I am not disagreeing with you; I’m just shocked that this goes against the tenor of this board generally.
Again, populism has no actual principles.
It's pretty easy to get a populist to be for (or against) something in one context and reverse field on the same thing but in a different context. It's not like they are thinking anything through.
And I don't know where the poster who originally wrote that post lives, but everywhere I go we've already imported physicians from India to the point that I don't know how we could import any more.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:22 am to TarheelPete
quote:
A free option for the basics to appease the poors and commies.
A private supplemental add on option for the whites and working class.
“Whites”?
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:22 am to Penrod
quote:
“Whites”?
What?
Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 8:25 am to Privateer 2007
quote:I cannot overemphasize what a poor decision that would be.
Bring in foreign physicians and nurses.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News