The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: RoosGirl on June 26, 2017, 08:47:50 pm
-
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339488-senate-adds-penalty-for-going-uninsured-to-healthcare-bill
Senate Republicans on Monday released a revised version of their healthcare reform bill that adds a provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance.
The Senate bill would make those who had a lapse in coverage for 63 days or more wait six months before obtaining insurance. Read the bill here.
The continuous coverage provision was noticeably omitted from the Senate’s draft, but aides said they were working behind the scenes to add it. The provision addresses concerns that people would only sign up for health coverage when they’re sick if insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The addition of the six-month waiting period could make it more difficult to pass the legislation if the Senate parliamentarian rules the provision violates the complex budget reconciliation rules. Republican leadership was working over the weekend to make sure the provision complies with the rules and can be included.
Continued at link.
-
Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.
Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?
...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?
...life insurance purchased after death?
-
Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.
Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?
...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?
...life insurance purchased after death?
I understand what you're getting at, just not sure this is the way to deal with it, though I'm not sure there *is* a good way. This makes the insurance company have to pick up the tab one way or the other, assuming you're still alive from whatever the pre-existing condition is, 6 months later.
-
Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.
-
The Senate's trying to make the bill less mean, i guess.
-
Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.
Right... so if you fall on hard times and lose coverage because you failed to make your payment for 90 days, Now you get *none* for six (more) months!
LOL! These idiots should be frog-marched out of the building, tarred and feathered, and sent home.
-
Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.
Yep, that's the way I looked at it also. But you know, pretty much once gov't gets involved in anything we all get screwed, I think at this point there's no getting around us all walking funny, except it'll be the rest our lives instead of just a couple of days.
-
Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.
They need to add a three month grace period --- so those who could not afford the premiums under Obamacare can sign up with the no coverage and pre-existing penalties waived if they do so within the first three months of the new plan. After the grace period, the penalty would apply.
-
Yep, that's the way I looked at it also. But you know, pretty much once gov't gets involved in anything we all get screwed, I think at this point there's no getting around us all walking funny, except it'll be the rest our lives instead of just a couple of days.
If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?
Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.
-
They need to add a three month grace period --- so those who could not afford the premiums under Obamacare can sign up with the pre-existing penalty waived if they do so within the first three months of the new plan. After the grace period, the penalty would apply.
There's a 63 days grace period as I understand it.
-
Chances are the insurance companies wrote this bill.
-
Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.
Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?
...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?
...life insurance purchased after death?
It's really more about forcing the healthier young people to buy insurance. They need those people to help cover the cost of older people.
-
If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?
Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.
I'm sooo confused. Would someone please explain to me....
how the HELL this crap sammich is any different OR any better than the crap sammich the Democrats served Americans? Other than that it will have the "GOP Label" of failure on it this time.
As near as I can tell it still embraces several key turdish components of ObamaCare:
Eliminating the very principle of insurance via forcing companies to insure pre-existing conditions (that's not insurance).
Still forcing folks to pay a penalty/fee/tax/whatever if they don't purchase health insurance (WTF???).
Still going to cost an arm, leg and probably half a torso to purchase basic or decent health insurance (ie no reductions in cost for consumers).
Still government in it up to government's corrupt and inept eyeballs (still socialized redistribution of wealth).
What.... the..... fruck?????
-
If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?
Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.
Oh, they figured out a way around that long ago. Just take some other House revenue measure that stalled in committee, "amend" it to erase all of its contents and leave it an empty shell, and amend it again with content of the bill they want.
-
In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.
When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public. Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.
Seemed morally indefensible to me.
-
In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.
When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public. Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.
Seemed morally indefensible to me.
I think a lot of people have gotten quite used to having "enrollment periods". But really, it's such a small price to pay for having the gov't take care of you. *****rollingeyes*****
-
In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.
When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public. Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.
Seemed morally indefensible to me.
I bitched incessantly about this restriction though not here. I found a way around it by offering a group plan to my very tiny company and putting my family on it. This way I was able to obtain insurance outside the window.
-
Why should anyone have to pay a penalty if they don't have a preexisting condition when they sign up, lapsed or not???
And if you do have a preexisting condition the penalty will mean squat.
Covering preexisting conditions isn't possible with insurance - because it isn't insurance anymore if you do. It is no longer based on risk and it just becomes a common pool everyone's health care is paid from regardless of risk. And that is single payer in the end. So if you want preexisting conditions to be covered you also want single payer because that is the consequence.
-
You can't have no penalty for preexisting conditions. You just cant, otherwise, why on earth would anyone buy insurance? Just wait until you're sick.
-
There's a 63 days grace period as I understand it.
If the 63 day grace period means no penalty for the currently uninsured, including those with pre-existing conditions, then it's fair and penalties for both should be applied only if enrolled from day 64 on.
@driftdiver
-
I wish both House and Senate leaders would insert a provision that directly refers to the provision within the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass this horrible legislation.
Until they do, this is 100% garbage.
-
Anyone know where and when the senate Republican baseball team has their practice?
-
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
-
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Got Tar.
Need feathers.
-
Why should anyone have to pay a penalty if they don't have a preexisting condition when they sign up, lapsed or not???
And if you do have a preexisting condition the penalty will mean squat.
Covering preexisting conditions isn't possible with insurance - because it isn't insurance anymore if you do. It is no longer based on risk and it just becomes a common pool everyone's health care is paid from regardless of risk. And that is single payer in the end. So if you want preexisting conditions to be covered you also want single payer because that is the consequence.
1.3 million AIDS/HIV patients. That's what that is about. One trillion dollars worth of redistribution (and counting).
-
Tell me how this was a repeal again?
-
Every person on this planet has a pre existing condition and will die as a result.
-
I wish both House and Senate leaders would insert a provision that directly refers to the provision within the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass this horrible legislation.
There is a constitutional amendment I would support.
Congress will make no law without including the passage of Constitutional authority for such law.
-
Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.
Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?
...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?
...life insurance purchased after death?
Quite correct - although I prefer the House bill's approach of requiring insurers to cover folks, but at a higher premium cost for a period of time. Or allowing insurers the option, instead of denying coverage entirely, to issue policies that don't cover a pre-existing condition.
Free riders are the bane of affordable insurance. Grappling with the problem of free riders was at the heart of the individual mandate, which of course offended many as a means of "forcing" them to join the risk pool with the rest of us.
"Community rating" only works if the risk pool includes the entire community. Selfish types who forego coverage until after they're sick burden hospitals with higher costs, and the rest of us with higher premiums.
In the end, while I'd prefer a different approach than what the Senate bill takes, a strong disincentive to free-ride is crucial if we are to avoid single payer. Bang 'em hard.
-
Tell me how this was a repeal again?
It's not. It's a reform. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported. From this morning's WSJ:
These [the Senate bill's reforms] are enormous conservative policy victories, even if they aren't everything we or other free-marketeers would like. Democrats built the entitlement state piecemeal over decades, and it will have to be reformed in pieces that are politically sustainable.
The larger and rarer opportunity is to show that conservative ideas can work in health care. More progress is possible as voters come to trust Republican solutions, but not if the GOP now panics into defeat. . . . Every consequential legislative reform is difficult, but the GOP anxiety over repeal and replace is excessive. They should have more confidence in their convictions and how their solutions can improve American lives.
-
Covering preexisting conditions isn't possible with insurance - because it isn't insurance anymore if you do. It is no longer based on risk and it just becomes a common pool everyone's health care is paid from regardless of risk. And that is single payer in the end. So if you want preexisting conditions to be covered you also want single payer because that is the consequence.
QFT. A strong penalty to discourage free riders is actually effective insurance against single payer.
-
Right... so if you fall on hard times and lose coverage because you failed to make your payment for 90 days, Now you get *none* for six (more) months!
Boy you sure sound like a Dem.
-
Boy you sure sound like a Dem.
Welp. Plenty of illogic on this point to go around, by both liberals and "conservatives".
Why on earth would anyone spend money on insurance when they could simply buy it when they got sick?
Without some sort of penalty for not buying insurance the whole thing fails.
-
QFT. A strong penalty to discourage free riders is actually effective insurance against single payer.
I gotta clear the air here. From the time I was 14 I have paid taxes. I have worked all but a couple of those years, and the couple I had off were involuntary separations from employment. Some employers had insurance plans, some did not. I paid into those who did, and when self-employed paid into my own.
This legislation, this ACA, removed my insurance from the marketplace and left two alternatives at a bad time:
Either something that cost nearly FIVE times as much, but had a deductible that was higher than the deductible and co-pay maximum under my old plan, or do without.
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
But I damnsure resent being called a "free rider" when the government shot my horse.
-
But Team Republican, y'all....better than Hillary, blah, blah...
-
I gotta clear the air here. From the time I was 14 I have paid taxes. I have worked all but a couple of those years, and the couple I had off were involuntary separations from employment. Some employers had insurance plans, some did not. I paid into those who did, and when self-employed paid into my own.
This legislation, this ACA, removed my insurance from the marketplace and left two alternatives at a bad time:
Either something that cost nearly FIVE times as much, but had a deductible that was higher than the deductible and co-pay maximum under my old plan, or do without.
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
But I damnsure resent being called a "free rider" when the government shot my horse.
:hands:
-
Boy you sure sound like a Dem.
You're projecting again, I see.
-
Welp. Plenty of illogic on this point to go around, by both liberals and "conservatives".
Why on earth would anyone spend money on insurance when they could simply buy it when they got sick?
Without some sort of penalty for not buying insurance the whole thing fails.
But the penalty proscribed assures no one will buy the insurance, or re-up after a lapse.
If you hit hard times, and can't keep up with the payments, and lose your coverage, by the time you could have resumed again, you're not even eligible again for six more months, whereupon you have to pay an exorbitant premium for some further period of time...
Who the hell is going to do that when you are barely affording this pile of crap in the first place?
When this exact scenario happened to me back when we had a free market in health care, when I re-signed, there was no penalty. there was no significant increase in cost. The actual insurance kicked in immediately, and the only difference was that pre-existing was not covered for 1 year.
-
I gotta clear the air here. From the time I was 14 I have paid taxes. I have worked all but a couple of those years, and the couple I had off were involuntary separations from employment. Some employers had insurance plans, some did not. I paid into those who did, and when self-employed paid into my own.
This legislation, this ACA, removed my insurance from the marketplace and left two alternatives at a bad time:
Either something that cost nearly FIVE times as much, but had a deductible that was higher than the deductible and co-pay maximum under my old plan, or do without.
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
But I damnsure resent being called a "free rider" when the government shot my horse.
After all the gov't fails, they still have no idea about the Law of Unintended Consequences. Our gov't, as it runs now, is a fail; the unintended consequences of sticking their damn noses in where they never should have been.
-
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
Try one of the various Christian Brotherhood systems... That is what my brother is doing, and he is paying out about what he was prior to this debacle... The 'premium' is not a fixed fee though. it wavers a bit... everyone is just pitching in in real-time to pay each other's medical bills, with under 10% going to the company to administer. He put in a claim earlier this year, and received 1k more than he needed to pay himself off... Of course, he took what he needed and rolled the rest right back in.
Looks like a good way.
-
...pre-existing was not covered for 1 year.
That was key to making it work in the private system. It prevented most people from dropping insurance for the purpose of waiting until they were deeply sick to sign back up.
-
That was key to making it work in the private system. It prevented most people from dropping insurance for the purpose of waiting until they were deeply sick to sign back up.
So what you get instead, is a continuous penalty that cannot be paid, which will cause people not to sign up until they're deeply sick.
I don't see any difference.
-
So what you get instead, is a continuous penalty that cannot be paid, which will cause people not to sign up until they're deeply sick.
I don't see any difference.
I agree the proposed plan, and the current Obama care, are not real improvements.
Government is the source of the problem. Believing they will also be the solution seems silly. They need to become farther removed, not deeper involved.
-
I agree the proposed plan, and the current Obama care, are not real improvements.
Government is the source of the problem. Believing they will also be the solution seems silly. They need to become farther removed, not deeper involved.
That's right.
-
Every person on this planet has a pre existing condition and will die as a result.
Yup your path to dying begins the moment you're born.
-
I gotta clear the air here. From the time I was 14 I have paid taxes. I have worked all but a couple of those years, and the couple I had off were involuntary separations from employment. Some employers had insurance plans, some did not. I paid into those who did, and when self-employed paid into my own.
This legislation, this ACA, removed my insurance from the marketplace and left two alternatives at a bad time:
Either something that cost nearly FIVE times as much, but had a deductible that was higher than the deductible and co-pay maximum under my old plan, or do without.
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
But I damnsure resent being called a "free rider" when the government shot my horse.
One of the best posts on the thread, IMO.
-
I gotta clear the air here. From the time I was 14 I have paid taxes. I have worked all but a couple of those years, and the couple I had off were involuntary separations from employment. Some employers had insurance plans, some did not. I paid into those who did, and when self-employed paid into my own.
This legislation, this ACA, removed my insurance from the marketplace and left two alternatives at a bad time:
Either something that cost nearly FIVE times as much, but had a deductible that was higher than the deductible and co-pay maximum under my old plan, or do without.
That left me with a decision: Pay three and a half times what my family's average out of pocket medical expenses would be for an insurance policy that left me on the hook for an additional nearly twice my family's average medical expenses would be (cost five times average annual medical expenses) of just pay the bill when I needed services. Frankly, that was a no-brainer. There has been no free ride. The bills have been paid, out of pocket.
But I damnsure resent being called a "free rider" when the government shot my horse.
Then again..... being called a "free rider" by a stuckonstupid commie is probably a badge of honor, when you think about it.
-
Psst. Vote's been postponed. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,269266.msg1370401/topicseen.html#msg1370401
-
Psst. Vote's been postponed. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,269266.msg1370401/topicseen.html#msg1370401
Kick that can, GOP.
-
Kick that can, GOP.
Meh. When in doubt, stick with what you know. They're good at can kicking.
-
Psst. Vote's been postponed. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,269266.msg1370401/topicseen.html#msg1370401
Not a smart move IMO for the GOP-E types that want to get Obamacare lite passed.
-
Kick that can, GOP.
I'll be generous and say there might be ten people in the senate who actually work for the people who elected them. The other ninety work for the lobby 100%
-
I'll be generous and say there might be ten people in the senate who actually work for the people who elected them. The other ninety work for the lobby 100%
Man you are in a generous mood
-
Man you are in a generous mood
Yeah. When I get past five I begin to have problems coming up with names.
-
There is a constitutional amendment I would support.
Congress will make no law without including the passage of Constitutional authority for such law.
And they will all point to General Welfare and Interstate Commerce, no matter how ridiculous.
-
Government is the source of the problem.
I contend that there are multiple problems, not just one.
One problem was people not getting care. So Ronald Reagan signed legislation to force hospitals to treat people at ERs. That solved a problem...but caused another. Hospitals had a cost forced upon them by an unfunded mandate from government.
There was no incentive for people not to go to the ER. People were not buying health insurance, and then costs were going onto others.
Obamacare was a way to force people to be responsible, as Americans didn't want people either dying in the street or dumping costs onto others. (Yes, I realize it also addressed other issues, like pre-existing conditions.)
Believing they will also be the solution seems silly.
Going back to pre-Obamacare doesn't solve the issues that led to the passage of Obamacare. Anyone who thinks so is either ignorant or dishonest. Repealing Obamacare will be dumping costs onto others, irresponsibly. We must also, to be fair and intellectually honest, either allow for people dying in the streets, or else pick up those costs as taxpayers.
But it seems many people want someone else to pay.
-
I contend that there are multiple problems, not just one.
No, it's always government. Artificial regulation has unintended consequences.
Going back to pre-Obamacare doesn't solve the issues that led to the passage of Obamacare. Anyone who thinks so is either ignorant or dishonest. Repealing Obamacare will be dumping costs onto others, irresponsibly. We must also, to be fair and intellectually honest, either allow for people dying in the streets, or else pick up those costs as taxpayers.
But it seems many people want someone else to pay.
No, it doesn't solve all the problems. It does solve the single big honkin problem that is costing folks THREE TIMES what they used to pay and resulting in substantially less coverage or no real coverage at all... which was caused by the government. An entirely unworkable 'solution' that should be utterly annihilated.
If you want to fix things, you don't start out this way.
-
No, it's always government. Artificial regulation has unintended consequences.
Yes, it does. But there were problems before government involvement.
No, it doesn't solve all the problems. It does solve the single big honkin problem that is costing folks THREE TIMES what they used to pay and resulting in substantially less coverage or no real coverage at all... which was caused by the government. An entirely unworkable 'solution' that should be utterly annihilated.
If you want to fix things, you don't start out this way.
A lot of those costs were there before...but they were just being borne by someone else.
Sure, we can roll the ACA back, but that doesn't solve it all. Government would still be involved. Roll back all government involvement, and you have the problems that led to government involvement in the first place!
I'm curious...what do you believe is the conservative path:
A) Let people die in the streets if they can't afford healthcare (or if they irresponsibly didn't purchase coverage).
B) Make only religious and caring people pick up the tab for those who can't afford healthcare while others don't help.
C) Force hospitals to pick up the costs of those who can't afford care.
D) Share the burden of those who can't afford care across the populations of those with means.
E) Make people get coverage to prevent them from becoming a burden on others.
-
I think in a really free country there are hard choices, choices that we don't like to have to make, but life being what it is, must be made. The truth (for me, YMMV) is that there isn't one person that *deserves* healthcare (clarifying to mean deserves at the expense of someone else). While I don't relish the thought of someone not being able to afford the "best" health care available, I equally don't relish forcing someone else to pay for someone other than themselves and those they are directly responsible for. I also think that with a lower tax burden people are more willing to give to give to local charities. This is better for the community as it puts more responsibility of humanity back into the local community. I think bottom line though, there is no "perfect" fix; there is either freedom (Constitutional) or there is not.
-
A lot of those costs were there before...but they were just being borne by someone else.
The costs are astronomical because of interference in free market principles.
Adding more interference will necessarily drive costs further, mark my words.
Sure, we can roll the ACA back, but that doesn't solve it all.
All it would solve is the biggest boondoggle which is a very long step in the right direction.
Government would still be involved. Roll back all government involvement, and you have the problems that led to government involvement in the first place!
There are many ways to solve this, most of which remove government regulation, and monopoly.
I'm curious...what do you believe is the conservative path:
A) Let people die in the streets if they can't afford healthcare (or if they irresponsibly didn't purchase coverage).
No one is 'dying in the streets'. Hyperbole much?
B) Make only religious and caring people pick up the tab for those who can't afford healthcare while others don't help.
A big part of it is removing the regulation on churches so that they could once again enter the health care market. HUGE difference with churches running hospitals instead of businesses. Charity s part of what they did, and what they would do.
C) Force hospitals to pick up the costs of those who can't afford care.
Necessarily so in emergency care. If a patient cannot enter into contract because the patient is unconscious, how exactly does that work, performing work has has not consented to? Certainly come of that can be absorbed. and write off is not necessarily bad for business.
D) Share the burden of those who can't afford care across the populations of those with means.
Force others to pay for it, you mean
E) Make people get coverage to prevent them from becoming a burden on others.
What else would you have the government mandate? because it won't stop here.
Why must the solution be socialism?
Better to look toward deregulation. Plumbers cost more than carpenters because of licensing, and only licensing. WHY? Any idiot can plumb a house. Same with doctors. Same with pharma. Open other avenues for competition, and watch the costs plummet.
-
I contend that there are multiple problems, not just one.
One problem was people not getting care. So Ronald Reagan signed legislation to force hospitals to treat people at ERs. That solved a problem...but caused another. Hospitals had a cost forced upon them by an unfunded mandate from government.
There was no incentive for people not to go to the ER. People were not buying health insurance, and then costs were going onto others.
Obamacare was a way to force people to be responsible, as Americans didn't want people either dying in the street or dumping costs onto others. (Yes, I realize it also addressed other issues, like pre-existing conditions.)
Going back to pre-Obamacare doesn't solve the issues that led to the passage of Obamacare. Anyone who thinks so is either ignorant or dishonest. Repealing Obamacare will be dumping costs onto others, irresponsibly. We must also, to be fair and intellectually honest, either allow for people dying in the streets, or else pick up those costs as taxpayers.
But it seems many people want someone else to pay.
For starters, if people were dying in the streets, it's only because they didn't make it to the hospital.
When we ran an ambulance call, we didn't ask for insurance or check people's wallets, we stabilized and transported. If we could keep 'em going long enough to get them down the red line or on the helicopter, they got care, period.
Obamacare didn't pay for health care, it is an insurance scam.
The words health care and health insurance were used interchangeably to obfusticate the issue.
There is no reason I should have to pay nearly 30K a year for a healthy family of 4 to have a 14K deductible for health insurance, except that someone else who has not lived a particularly healthy lifestyle is really padding out that tab, or the middlemen in the system are taking one hell of a cut.
That insurance would be for a family with a history of less than 8K a year in medical costs, for quite a few years.
In the interest of making sure people who didn't have health insurance, got health insurance, there were multitudes who had 'lesser plans' to take care of the big events, and who paid the small stuff out of pocket, who lost their insurance.
Total cost for the family of 4 was about 14 K for catastrophic coverage and actual costs, COMBINED.
Half what the insurance alone (not counting deductibles and co-pays) would cost under Obamacare, for the whole shooting match.
So who is getting fat off this deal?
For starters, Obamacare mandates coverage that may not be needed by the individual, ever, (by that I mean things like prenatal care and contraceptives for post menopausal nuns), and that ordinarily would not be present in a plan a family or even a group might seek. OB coverage? not at our age. Contraceptives? Nope. Drug or alcohol rehab? No, thanks, don't do either. Prescription drug coverage? No thanks, aside from the occasional antibiotic, we don't do those either.
All of these considerations are high dollar items, and the more paperwork filed, the more expensive they are to provide coverage for.
Since ours covered events which led to ER visits, day surgery (or more) or hospital admissions, the rest was pretty much out of the HSA. This meant a reduction in paperwork, not only for the insurance company, but the hospital, too. Give me the bill, I pay the bill. Done. If for some reason I had not been able to pay, I could talk with the provider and set up a payment plan. People did this on a regular basis.
But Obamacare, the outfit that couldn't put up a working website, was geared with the Omnibus in mind, with everything covered in the insurance, and which added a whole bureaucracy in the middle.
There is little the private sector can't do more efficiently, faster, and cheaper than the Government, and this is just another example. Except the private sector can't strongarm the public, not like the IRS.
Overall, If we had just paid the bills for those who couldn't (something we were all doing anyway, either through Medicaid or on our own doctor bill), it would have been cheaper, but there was a whole subsidy scam set up which amounts to medical welfare, and is structured similarly with means testing for benefits, and which also masks the actual costs from those who are subsidized--costs which go beyond the cost of health care, because at the bottom of it all are the federal bureaucracies dealing with means testing and the distribution of subsidies.
Well, we didn't qualify for a subsidy, nor medicaid, we just fell through the cracks while the plan we had which worked went the way of the dinosaurs who watched the bolide come in. No work for a year=no money coming in, but we didn't qualify for any of it. Now people who had insurance can "die in the streets" and be penalized for the privilege.
I refused to pay 28K a year for insurance, especially with a 14K deductible. That's nuts for a family whose normal medical costs were under 8 K a year.
Would you save 20 grand a year?
I knew you would.
Typical of Democrat programs, there are unintended consequences. The whole setup catered specifically to poor people (who were already covered under medicaid, for the most part), and "working poor" who may still be working part time, or who may have lost their full time job because the employer could not afford to buy them the Cadillac plans mandated--job loss being another unintended consequence, along with the loss of "inferior" insurance plans.
This is what happens when you have people with a benefit package to die for, who don't have to show a profit in what they do, making rules for people who never had a 'wish list' plan, but who do have to run in the black on the bottom line.
But the other thing is that there were people who were going to be covered who have conditions who were uninsurable under ordinary policies because of lifestyle choices. I'm not talking about little Billy with the childhood cancer (Ever hear of St. Jude's Hospitals for Children? The Shriners have one, too.)
I'm not talking about needle junkies who were going through rehab on the State tab anyway (which has burgeoned into a whole 'nother scam).
I'm talking about a trillion dollar medical liability that largely belongs to a group who is disproportionately represented in Washington DC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) for a disease that is primarily related to behaviour.
Yes, that one.
One million three hundred thousand and growing segment of the population who caught a disease either because they shared needles or homosexual contact, for the most part. and the bill for the known and already existing population is estimated at one trillion dollars. If they need a program to pay for that care, set one up and leave the rest of us out of it as much as possible. But had that been done, the backlash would have been predictably severe.
In the meantime, the whole bit about people dying in the streets evokes imagery that might engender a more sympathetic response from the people about to get it up the a$$, whether they swing that way or not.
Repeal this crap, lock, stock, and barrel.
-
For starters, if people were dying in the streets, it's only because they didn't make it to the hospital.
When we ran an ambulance call, we didn't ask for insurance or check people's wallets, we stabilized and transported. If we could keep 'em going long enough to get them down the red line or on the helicopter, they got care, period.
Obamacare didn't pay for health care, it is an insurance scam.
The words health care and health insurance were used interchangeably to obfusticate the issue.
There is no reason I should have to pay nearly 30K a year for a healthy family of 4 to have a 14K deductible for health insurance, except that someone else who has not lived a particularly healthy lifestyle is really padding out that tab, or the middlemen in the system are taking one hell of a cut.
That insurance would be for a family with a history of less than 8K a year in medical costs, for quite a few years.
In the interest of making sure people who didn't have health insurance, got health insurance, there were multitudes who had 'lesser plans' to take care of the big events, and who paid the small stuff out of pocket, who lost their insurance.
Total cost for the family of 4 was about 14 K for catastrophic coverage and actual costs, COMBINED.
Half what the insurance alone (not counting deductibles and co-pays) would cost under Obamacare, for the whole shooting match.
So who is getting fat off this deal?
For starters, Obamacare mandates coverage that may not be needed by the individual, ever, (by that I mean things like prenatal care and contraceptives for post menopausal nuns), and that ordinarily would not be present in a plan a family or even a group might seek. OB coverage? not at our age. Contraceptives? Nope. Drug or alcohol rehab? No, thanks, don't do either. Prescription drug coverage? No thanks, aside from the occasional antibiotic, we don't do those either.
All of these considerations are high dollar items, and the more paperwork filed, the more expensive they are to provide coverage for.
Since ours covered events which led to ER visits, day surgery (or more) or hospital admissions, the rest was pretty much out of the HSA. This meant a reduction in paperwork, not only for the insurance company, but the hospital, too. Give me the bill, I pay the bill. Done. If for some reason I had not been able to pay, I could talk with the provider and set up a payment plan. People did this on a regular basis.
But Obamacare, the outfit that couldn't put up a working website, was geared with the Omnibus in mind, with everything covered in the insurance, and which added a whole bureaucracy in the middle.
There is little the private sector can't do more efficiently, faster, and cheaper than the Government, and this is just another example. Except the private sector can't strongarm the public, not like the IRS.
Overall, If we had just paid the bills for those who couldn't (something we were all doing anyway, either through Medicaid or on our own doctor bill), it would have been cheaper, but there was a whole subsidy scam set up which amounts to medical welfare, and is structured similarly with means testing for benefits, and which also masks the actual costs from those who are subsidized--costs which go beyond the cost of health care, because at the bottom of it all are the federal bureaucracies dealing with means testing and the distribution of subsidies.
Well, we didn't qualify for a subsidy, nor medicaid, we just fell through the cracks while the plan we had which worked went the way of the dinosaurs who watched the bolide come in. No work for a year=no money coming in, but we didn't qualify for any of it. Now people who had insurance can "die in the streets" and be penalized for the privilege.
I refused to pay 28K a year for insurance, especially with a 14K deductible. That's nuts for a family whose normal medical costs were under 8 K a year.
Would you save 20 grand a year?
I knew you would.
Typical of Democrat programs, there are unintended consequences. The whole setup catered specifically to poor people (who were already covered under medicaid, for the most part), and "working poor" who may still be working part time, or who may have lost their full time job because the employer could not afford to buy them the Cadillac plans mandated--job loss being another unintended consequence, along with the loss of "inferior" insurance plans.
This is what happens when you have people with a benefit package to die for, who don't have to show a profit in what they do, making rules for people who never had a 'wish list' plan, but who do have to run in the black on the bottom line.
But the other thing is that there were people who were going to be covered who have conditions who were uninsurable under ordinary policies because of lifestyle choices. I'm not talking about little Billy with the childhood cancer (Ever hear of St. Jude's Hospitals for Children? The Shriners have one, too.)
I'm not talking about needle junkies who were going through rehab on the State tab anyway (which has burgeoned into a whole 'nother scam).
I'm talking about a trillion dollar medical liability that largely belongs to a group who is disproportionately represented in Washington DC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) for a disease that is primarily related to behaviour.
Yes, that one.
One million three hundred thousand and growing segment of the population who caught a disease either because they shared needles or homosexual contact, for the most part. and the bill for the known and already existing population is estimated at one trillion dollars. If they need a program to pay for that care, set one up and leave the rest of us out of it as much as possible. But had thatbeen done, the backlash would have been predictably severe.
In the meantime, the whole bit about people dying in the streets evokes imagery that might engender a more sympathetic response from the people about to get it up the a$$, whether they swing that way or not.
Repeal this crap, lock, stock, and barrel.
@Smokin Joe
First of all, if you want to avoid HIV, refrain from gay sex. Political correctness kills people because it will blame the disease on anything except the behavior that largely causes it. Also, when dealing with people who tend to be unstable to the point of deliberately infecting each other with HIV, what can you do?
A friend of mine in New Jersey is a nurse. I've heard her say over and over that no one is refused care at the hospital. In fact, there were a couple of homeless men who used to abuse the policy. They would show up, claiming to be sick so they could be admitted. Then they used the hospital for their own personal hotel and treated the nurses like waitresses.
As for more routine/ non-emergency care, why do people never mention free clinics? I did a search and came up with a list of 107 free clinics in my state. They've been around a long time, but it's as though they don't exist.
-
A friend of mine in New Jersey is a nurse. I've heard her say over and over that no one is refused care at the hospital.
Yes...Ronald Reagan signed legislation forcing them to do so. That's the government in health care that some people here want to remove. Others seem to think that care happens by magic, for free, just because the hospital gets socked with the costs.
In fact, there were a couple of homeless men who used to abuse the policy. They would show up, claiming to be sick so they could be admitted. Then they used the hospital for their own personal hotel and treated the nurses like waitresses.
Exactly.
As for more routine/ non-emergency care, why do people never mention free clinics? I did a search and came up with a list of 107 free clinics in my state. They've been around a long time, but it's as though they don't exist.
Yup. Government in heath care.
-
@Smokin Joe
First of all, if you want to avoid HIV, refrain from gay sex. Political correctness kills people because it will blame the disease on anything except the behavior that largely causes it. Also, when dealing with people who tend to be unstable to the point of deliberately infecting each other with HIV, what can you do?
let them pick up their own tab and not infect the health insurance industry with their demands. That sounds cold, but there is a reason some people were considered "uninsurable" because of risk levels that approached certainty for some behaviours, or the 'preexisting conditions' of already being infected. There is, in DC, one of the highest population percentages of the GLBTs in the country. (between 8 and 10 percent--San Francisco is actually less 'gay') which may explain the disproportionate representation that group seems to have. This is a 'transfer of wealth' to pay for HIV/AIDS treatment, at the expense of people who would never engage in the behaviour to contract the disease. It's a 'payback' for the 'breeders', not to mention the house rake in the insurance middleman scheme.
A friend of mine in New Jersey is a nurse. I've heard her say over and over that no one is refused care at the hospital. In fact, there were a couple of homeless men who used to abuse the policy. They would show up, claiming to be sick so they could be admitted. Then they used the hospital for their own personal hotel and treated the nurses like waitresses.
When I was EMS, we never had, nor have I ever heard of, a hospital refuse to treat a patient. That included helicopter transport to what was then the nation's premier trauma unit (ShockTrauma at Hopkins) and treatment there. If they died in the streets, it was because they didn't make to the hospital.
As for more routine/ non-emergency care, why do people never mention free clinics? I did a search and came up with a list of 107 free clinics in my state. They've been around a long time, but it's as though they don't exist.
Good question, but it would interfere with the whole 'poor waifs dying in the streets' meme.
-
I contend that there are multiple problems, not just one.
Agreed, but I see government interference in the industry/market as the biggest.
One problem was people not getting care. So Ronald Reagan signed legislation to force hospitals to treat people at ERs. That solved a problem...but caused another. Hospitals had a cost forced upon them by an unfunded mandate from government.
I see that as a mistake by Reagan. Getting the government to replace charity is harmful to society. People need to help others, for their own benefit as well as the benefit of those receiving. The idea that this charity should first past through the government and be forced upon everyone is a mistake.
There was no incentive for people not to go to the ER. People were not buying health insurance, and then costs were going onto others.
Obamacare was a way to force people to be responsible, as Americans didn't want people either dying in the street or dumping costs onto others. (Yes, I realize it also addressed other issues, like pre-existing conditions.)
Going back to pre-Obamacare doesn't solve the issues that led to the passage of Obamacare. Anyone who thinks so is either ignorant or dishonest. Repealing Obamacare will be dumping costs onto others, irresponsibly. We must also, to be fair and intellectually honest, either allow for people dying in the streets, or else pick up those costs as taxpayers.
But it seems many people want someone else to pay.
Keeping Obamacare is also dumping cost onto others, irresponsibly. The difference is it adds to the cost with an inefficient and ineffective middleman that has no incentive to improve.
-
Yes, it does. But there were problems before government involvement.
A lot of those costs were there before...but they were just being borne by someone else.
Sure, we can roll the ACA back, but that doesn't solve it all. Government would still be involved. Roll back all government involvement, and you have the problems that led to government involvement in the first place!
I'm curious...what do you believe is the conservative path:
A) Let people die in the streets if they can't afford healthcare (or if they irresponsibly didn't purchase coverage).
B) Make only religious and caring people pick up the tab for those who can't afford healthcare while others don't help.
C) Force hospitals to pick up the costs of those who can't afford care.
D) Share the burden of those who can't afford care across the populations of those with means.
E) Make people get coverage to prevent them from becoming a burden on others.
ObamaCare, of course, takes the approach in (E) - that's the hated individual mandate. But as Suppressed implies, it IS a fundamentally conservative solution, bolstering the private insurance market under a regime of community rating by broadening the risk pool.
The Dems' alternative if this doesn't work is single payer. What are the solutions proposed by conservatives? Most here, it appears, essentially favor (C) - forcing the cost on to hospitals obliged to treat the uninsured, and distorting the private insurance market in the process. How the hell is that an acceptable alternative?
And how can any private insurance market rationally function without real penalties for free riders? It is astonishing - well, astonishingly dishonest intellectually - to read some here complaining about measures to address free riders, and even characterizing such behavior as somehow noble. It IS rational behavior (everyone wants something for nothing), but also exceedingly selfish.
No private insurance system can function if folks can purchase insurance only when they need it. As has been pointed out - that's not insurance at all, but pure and simple welfare.
-
There is no reason I should have to pay nearly 30K a year for a healthy family of 4 to have a 14K deductible for health insurance, except that someone else who has not lived a particularly healthy lifestyle is really padding out that tab, or the middlemen in the system are taking one hell of a cut.
Or maybe there's a third reason - too many damn people with exactly the same attitude as you.
-
Most here, it appears, essentially favor (C) - forcing the cost on to hospitals obliged to treat the uninsured, and distorting the private insurance market in the process. How the hell is that an acceptable alternative?
While my choice lies outside those choices, back when it was (C), it added ~6% to the total cost of those hospitals. Current choices have cost to get health care FAR exceeding that added cost.
http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/2011/chapter4.pdf
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2cpzw9e.jpg)
-
Here is a fact sheet on uncompensated care provided by hospitals (http://www.aha.org/content/16/uncompensatedcarefactsheet.pdf), put out by the American Hospital Association.
Since 2000, hospitals of all types have provided more than $538 billion in uncompensated care to their patients. However, significantly, that number does NOT include other unfunded costs of care, such as underpayments from Medicare and Medicaid.
Want to know why your private insurance (non-Medicare or Medicaid) is so high? You're paying for all the above. What's happening is selective socialism - some of us are paying more to finance uncompensated or under-compensated care provided to others.
-
When I was EMS, we never had, nor have I ever heard of, a hospital refuse to treat a patient. That included helicopter transport to what was then the nation's premier trauma unit (ShockTrauma at Hopkins) and treatment there. If they died in the streets, it was because they didn't make to the hospital.
...
Good question, but it would interfere with the whole 'poor waifs dying in the streets' meme.
Again, again, again...government prevents that, with a legal requirement of hospitals to treat people. Prior to that, there were periods in America's history when people DID die in the streets, being refused treatment. Here's an example of what can happen: http://www.manilatimes.net/penniless-nobel-laureate-dies-after-private-hospital-refused-to-treat-him/223747/
Sure, you can say private charity will pick up slack, but there's no way that will happen with the level of costs today. And those costs aren't all from a lack of competition or government regulation. People have clamored for better and better healthcare...1970s care is still cheap. It's the advancements that cost.
So yes, the choice is government involvement, or people dying in the streets. And if you suggest government involvement, are you prepared to pick up part of that tab, or are you pushing it off onto someone else, like a hospital?
-
Yes...Ronald Reagan signed legislation forcing them to do so. That's the government in health care that some people here want to remove. Others seem to think that care happens by magic, for free, just because the hospital gets socked with the costs.
Exactly.
Yup. Government in heath care.
@Suppressed
Right. We have plenty of it now, so Obamacare isn't needed and should be repealed.
-
Or maybe there's a third reason - too many damn people with exactly the same attitude as you.
@Jazzhead
Virtue signaling comes cheap on an internet forum. But I just wonder how thrilled you are IRL to pay through the nose for others' healthcare.
-
@Suppressed
Right. We have plenty of it now, so Obamacare isn't needed and should be repealed.
But ObamaCare still attempts to address the "selective socialism" aspect of the current system (see my post above), by "forcing" everybody to be responsible and carry insurance. Conservatives don't like that assault on their liberty, but are perfectly willing to allow others to pick up the tab for the sick.
-
@Jazzhead
Virtue signaling comes cheap on an internet forum. But I just wonder how thrilled you are IRL to pay through the nose for others' healthcare.
I'm not. I pay more - my employer pays more - for health insurance because of folks who refuse to cover themselves and then demand treatment when they get sick. No, I don't want folks dying in the street - and some here seem perfectly comfortable with the concept, especially for those "less virtuous" than themselves.
-
let them pick up their own tab and not infect the health insurance industry with their demands. That sounds cold, but there is a reason some people were considered "uninsurable" because of risk levels that approached certainty for some behaviours, or the 'preexisting conditions' of already being infected. There is, in DC, one of the highest population percentages of the GLBTs in the country. (between 8 and 10 percent--San Francisco is actually less 'gay') which may explain the disproportionate representation that group seems to have. This is a 'transfer of wealth' to pay for HIV/AIDS treatment, at the expense of people who would never engage in the behaviour to contract the disease. It's a 'payback' for the 'breeders', not to mention the house rake in the insurance middleman scheme. When I was EMS, we never had, nor have I ever heard of, a hospital refuse to treat a patient. That included helicopter transport to what was then the nation's premier trauma unit (ShockTrauma at Hopkins) and treatment there. If they died in the streets, it was because they didn't make to the hospital. Good question, but it would interfere with the whole 'poor waifs dying in the streets' meme.
@Smokin Joe
I agree; if you're going to engage in gay sex, know up front you're walking a train trestle. If a train hits you, you bear the burden for it.
The only TV news I watch is local, and I have never seen a single story about someone in the community dying because healthcare was too expensive. Not one.
-
Here is a fact sheet on uncompensated care provided by hospitals (http://www.aha.org/content/16/uncompensatedcarefactsheet.pdf), put out by the American Hospital Association.
Since 2000, hospitals of all types have provided more than $538 billion in uncompensated care to their patients. However, significantly, that number does NOT include other unfunded costs of care, such as underpayments from Medicare and Medicaid.
Want to know why your private insurance (non-Medicare or Medicaid) is so high? You're paying for all the above. What's happening is selective socialism - some of us are paying more to finance uncompensated or under-compensated care provided to others.
Thank you for that link. Page three validates my claim the uncompensated care is a small part of the total cost.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/23k6983.jpg)
-
I'm not. I pay more - my employer pays more - for health insurance because of folks who refuse to cover themselves and then demand treatment when they get sick. No, I don't want folks dying in the street - and some here seem perfectly comfortable with the concept, especially for those "less virtuous" than themselves.
@Jazzhead
"Dying in the streets" is as much of a thing as manmade global warming. See, there comes a time when the meme you're pushing becomes as threadbare as Grandpa's old work shirt, and you have to find a new one.
It's that time.
-
But ObamaCare still attempts to address the "selective socialism" aspect of the current system (see my post above), by "forcing" everybody to be responsible and carry insurance. Conservatives don't like that assault on their liberty, but are perfectly willing to allow others to pick up the tab for the sick.
@Jazzhead
Sorry, that's unConstitutional.
-
Never seen a story about someone dying in the street for want of health care. Seen plenty about health care bankrupcies.
-
@Jazzhead
Sorry, that's unConstitutional.
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
-
The only TV news I watch is local, and I have never seen a single story about someone in the community dying because healthcare was too expensive. Not one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html
But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.
The trouble is, someone is paying for that. It's not magically free.
Who should pay? The hospital? Why? Doctors? Why?
Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage. And if they don't have the means, then what?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html
But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.
The trouble is, someone is paying for that. It's not magically free.
Who should pay? The hospital? Why? Doctors? Why?
Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage. And if they don't have the means, then what?
Where I live there is a hospital district funded by the taxpayers so indigent care has never been dropped on any single group or individual but if it were left up to me the people who received such care would have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.
-
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
Would you point to the Constitutional passage that give this authority to legislature?
-
Would you point to the Constitutional passage that give this authority to legislature?
Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Medicare and Medicaid are single payer; I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.
The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state. No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.
-
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
Dennis Kucinich said it, so it must be true!
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html
But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.
The trouble is, someone is paying for that. It's not magically free.
Who should pay? The hospital? Why? Doctors? Why?
Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage. And if they don't have the means, then what?
@Suppressed
I think that's a debate that can be had after repealing Obamacare. Those questions can't get in the way of the fact that the GOP restoration of Obamacare would be a disaster.
-
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
It's just as unconstitutional.
-
Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Medicare and Medicaid are single payer; I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.
The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state. No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.
And you'd be wrong on both instances.
It's an extreme reach and actually a reach too far.
Your complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution comes shining through yet again.
-
And you'd be wrong on both instances.
It's an extreme reach and actually a reach too far.
Your complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution comes shining through yet again.
What case do you cite for your position, in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"? Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.
Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance.
-
What case do you cite for your position, in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"? Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.
Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance.
Medicaid and Medicare aren't "law" you dolt...they are programs that can and should be ended...they aren't constitutional and they are two of the biggest drags on the economy and the Federal Budget out there.
Show me where in the Constitution it allows for either welfare program.
Not that factual evidence will ever matter when it comes to you...but once again...I'll demonstrate why you're wrong.
As for your ridiculous claim about single payer being Constitutional...again allow me to show how lacking your knowledge of the Constitution is.
The problem with establishing a government-run single-payer health care system in the United States is that to do so would require the government to nationalize every private health-care firm in the country -- or put them out of business.
That would violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which bars the government from taking private property for public use -- unless the government pays compensation to the owners of the private firms it nationalizes. And such compensation would run into the trillions of dollars.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/8/739981/-
-
Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Medicare and Medicaid are single payer; I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.
The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state. No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.
Regulating Commerce isn't the same as the federal government taking over all the commerce in an industry. Are you claiming there are no optional coverage for those covered under Medicare/Medicaid?
Promote the General Welfare isn't the same as force the welfare either.
I agree as long as we accept politicians that will ignore the constitution, the Constitution won't stand as a force. Voters need to make that more important. Conservatives need to do more to educate the importance of the Constitution.
-
Us arguing that this and that social program is "unconstitutional" is pretty useless. USSC has ruled them constitutional.
So using that as an argument against is likely to fall flat in the public arena.
BTW, I agree on their lack of constitutionality.
-
What case do you cite for your position, in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"? Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.
Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance.
You are not required by law to be on Medicare/Medicaid. Some are not.
https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/get-parts-a-and-b/should-you-get-part-b/should-i-get-part-b.html#collapse-5786
-
ObamaCare, of course, takes the approach in (E) - that's the hated individual mandate. But as Suppressed implies, it IS a fundamentally conservative solution, bolstering the private insurance market under a regime of community rating by broadening the risk pool.
NO. This is not a Conservative solution. It is a socialist one. Redistribution, plain and simple. No Conservative solution would have redistribution at it's core. Again, a Conservative plan would reduce regulation, increase competition, remove cronyism causing monopoly, and let market forces perform as they ought and as they will.
The Dems' alternative if this doesn't work is single payer. What are the solutions proposed by conservatives? Most here, it appears, essentially favor (C) - forcing the cost on to hospitals obliged to treat the uninsured, and distorting the private insurance market in the process. How the hell is that an acceptable alternative?
THIS is single payer. It is where it will inevitably lead.
And how can any private insurance market rationally function without real penalties for free riders? It is astonishing - well, astonishingly dishonest intellectually - to read some here complaining about measures to address free riders, and even characterizing such behavior as somehow noble. It IS rational behavior (everyone wants something for nothing), but also exceedingly selfish.
This will create MORE 'free riders', not less. This claim is so very disingenuous that it can be declared a damnable lie.
No private insurance system can function if folks can purchase insurance only when they need it. As has been pointed out - that's not insurance at all, but pure and simple welfare.
Which is exactly what this does.
-
Sure, you can say private charity will pick up slack, but there's no way that will happen with the level of costs today. And those costs aren't all from a lack of competition or government regulation. People have clamored for better and better healthcare...1970s care is still cheap. It's the advancements that cost.
BALONEY!
The costs are inflated just the very same way that the cost of gasoline was jacked up to four dollars a gallon. Now it's a buck eighty. What artificially propped up the market on gas? What knocked those props out, to give us reasonable prices to gas AND good access to gas?
What needs to happen is to identify what is propping up the prices, and remove those props to let the market bear as it normally would.
Making insurance illegal would do more in the right direction than making insurance mandatory.
-
Thank you for that link. Page three validates my claim the uncompensated care is a small part of the total cost.
I have no doubt my little painting business wrote off more than 6% in non-payment every year.
-
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
YES, 'single payer' most certainly IS unconstitutional.
-
Where I live there is a hospital district funded by the taxpayers so indigent care has never been dropped on any single group or individual but if it were left up to me the people who received such care would have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.
Where everyone lives there is county health services. Paid for by the local taxes. Likely there are state services too, paid for by state taxes. there is little need for the federal behemoth to impose itself on 1/7th of the economy 'for the chidrenn'.
-
BALONEY!
The costs are inflated just the very same way that the cost of gasoline was jacked up to four dollars a gallon. Now it's a buck eighty. What artificially propped up the market on gas? What knocked those props out, to give us reasonable prices to gas AND good access to gas?
What needs to happen is to identify what is propping up the prices, and remove those props to let the market bear as it normally would.
Making insurance illegal would do more in the right direction than making insurance mandatory.
I have long thought that getting rid of insurance for everyone would lower medical care prices. I figured out a while ago that private doctor's offices will often reduce the amount you owe them if you just ask them for a discount. That to me means that after collecting their fee from insurance and waiting on the remainder that you owe out of pocket, they've padded the price quite a bit. Say it's MSRP versus invoice.
-
I have long thought that getting rid of insurance for everyone would lower medical care prices. I figured out a while ago that private doctor's offices will often reduce the amount you owe them if you just ask them for a discount. That to me means that after collecting their fee from insurance and waiting on the remainder that you owe out of pocket, they've padded the price quite a bit. Say it's MSRP versus invoice.
When I have had large deductible plans, I have offered to pay cash at time of service and nearly always received a significant discount. I kept track of charges and if I approached the deductible, ran them through the insurance.
For some, that was a 50% discount. Just asked once, no begging or pleading, price cut in half. I don't think it was ever less than 20% discount.
-
When I have had large deductible plans, I have offered to pay cash at time of service and nearly always received a significant discount. I kept track of charges and if I approached the deductible, ran them through the insurance.
For some, that was a 50% discount. Just asked once, no begging or pleading, price cut in half. I don't think it was ever less than 20% discount.
Yep, that's the experience I had as well.
-
I have long thought that getting rid of insurance for everyone would lower medical care prices. I figured out a while ago that private doctor's offices will often reduce the amount you owe them if you just ask them for a discount. That to me means that after collecting their fee from insurance and waiting on the remainder that you owe out of pocket, they've padded the price quite a bit. Say it's MSRP versus invoice.
It would necessarily plummet. It would also necessarily shed tons of jobs in both the medical and insurance industries, as volume goes WAY down. I would assert that what is driving costs is not the indigent or free rider, but rather, the use of the system for incidental things, better covered by folk medicine.
-
It would necessarily plummet. It would also necessarily shed tons of jobs in both the medical and insurance industries, as volume goes WAY down. I would assert that what is driving costs is not the indigent or free rider, but rather, the use of the system for incidental things, better covered by folk medicine.
A lot of people don't know how to treat themselves for minor things anymore. In fact, I noted here a thread being disparaged for offering information on self-treatment of a certain condition. So, not just people don't know how to anymore, they are actually looked down upon for using home remedies.
-
A lot of people don't know how to treat themselves for minor things anymore. In fact, I noted here a thread being disparaged for offering information on self-treatment of a certain condition. So, not just people don't know how to anymore, they are actually looked down upon for using home remedies.
I know. weird, huh? A TON of folks go running to the doctor if the kid gets so much as a sniffle.
As it is, in real time, the price of all of it is absurd. One of my grandkids had to get his hand/finger stitched up... Five stitches cost almost five hundred bucks. That's just stupid.
-
Where I live there is a hospital district funded by the taxpayers so indigent care has never been dropped on any single group or individual but if it were left up to me the people who received such care would have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.
@Bigun
Excellent. I would also like to see some sort of triage that would allow for ridiculously non-ER cases removed to a less-costly clinic setting, or even told, "I'm sorry, but that's not covered."
-
A lot of people don't know how to treat themselves for minor things anymore. In fact, I noted here a thread being disparaged for offering information on self-treatment of a certain condition. So, not just people don't know how to anymore, they are actually looked down upon for using home remedies.
You got me thinking... Other than Neosporin and fungal cream, and an occasional bar of anti-bacterial soap, I really can't think of much I even buy over the counter... There may be a cough drop or two laying around... but really, my medicine cabinet is empty. most of my 'medicine' is in the kitchen.
-
You got me thinking... Other than Neosporin and fungal cream, and an occasional bar of anti-bacterial soap, I really can't think of much I even buy over the counter... There may be a cough drop or two laying around... but really, my medicine cabinet is empty. most of my 'medicine' is in the kitchen.
I'm surprised you don't use essential oils to replace all those things. Or am I thinking about someone else who has used them to great advantage?
-
I'm surprised you don't use essential oils to replace all those things. Or am I thinking about someone else who has used them to great advantage?
*Raises hand.*
I use essential oils for a lot of things, especially the various fungal infections you pick up out country.
-
I'm surprised you don't use essential oils to replace all those things. Or am I thinking about someone else who has used them to great advantage?
Yeah, that's me. And no doubt, eventually I will get there. BUT, as I have said before, I have not found AS effective a remedy as I would prefer in those cases... No doubt a matter of ignorance more than reality.
Until I find something as (or more) effective, I will use what I know... Another over the counter 'med' that I find hard to replace is bag balm. It has been so much a part of life for me, and my critters, that it is THE go-to, more often then not, where it applies...
-
*Raises hand.*
I use essential oils for a lot of things, especially the various fungal infections you pick up out country.
fungus is a big deal. Which essentials, pray tell?
-
If I've got a couple days where I don't have to do the old creep and peep, I use a mix heavy on the tea tree oil. It's 30 drops Tea Tea Tree, 5 drops Mandarin, 10 drops Lavander, 5 drops blue chamomille in 100 ml grape seed oil (that is the best carrier oil for topical use, it's almost identical to natural skin oils, so penetrates enough.
Unfortunately, that mix, while it kills any fungal infection, has an incredibly strong smell. So for times when I need to keep treating without letting anything with a nose within half a mile know I'm there, it's 5 drops lavander, 5 drops pine oil, 5 drops marjoram, stirred into 15 ml zinc oxide cream. Won't kill the infection off completely, but holds it back and stops it spreading.
-
If I've got a couple days where I don't have to do the old creep and peep, I use a mix heavy on the tea tree oil. It's 30 drops Tea Tea Tree, 5 drops Mandarin, 10 drops Lavander, 5 drops blue chamomille in 100 ml grape seed oil (that is the best carrier oil for topical use, it's almost identical to natural skin oils, so penetrates enough.
Unfortunately, that mix, while it kills any fungal infection, has an incredibly strong smell. So for times when I need to keep treating without letting anything with a nose within half a mile know I'm there, it's 5 drops lavander, 5 drops pine oil, 5 drops marjoram, stirred into 15 ml zinc oxide cream. Won't kill the infection off completely, but holds it back and stops it spreading.
Thanks for that @EC ... I will give it a try. It is fairly familiar, but I have been basing in pine oil or birch bark oil... tea tree, lavender, chamomile, burdock leaf. It is effective, but as you said, it is a holding action. Works better as an insect repellent. :shrug:
Keeping a tube of Lavasil (is that right? Jock itch stuff) around makes for seriously effective treatment on pretty much any fungal strain. Not toe nail fungus... all I have found to cure that effectively is soaking the feet in automotive solvent (mineral spirits, mainly), which is more effective than any prescription, btw.
-
I have used oregano oil for fungal infections with great success.
-
I have used oregano oil for fungal infections with great success.
Not me... I am a great believer in oregano oil (hyssop from the Bible)... bit I have found little effectiveness on fungus, at least for me.
-
Not me... I am a great believer in oregano oil (hyssop from the Bible)... bit I have found little effectiveness on fungus, at least for me.
That's funny, because I find that Tea Tree Oil doesn't work that well for me. I just figure the oregano oil is burning a few layers of skin off and taking the fungus with it. Wow that stuff can light you up if you mix it a little too rich. :)
-
That's funny, because I find that Tea Tree Oil doesn't work that well for me. I just figure the oregano oil is burning a few layers of skin off and taking the fungus with it. Wow that stuff can light you up if you mix it a little too rich. :)
LOL! that's right... and I take it direct into the blood every day which involves an unwatered drop smeared around right on the gums... hoo boy.
(http://vitadiscount.com/vitasprings/oreganol-p73-oil-1-oz-north-american.jpg)
-
Here is a fact sheet on uncompensated care provided by hospitals (http://www.aha.org/content/16/uncompensatedcarefactsheet.pdf), put out by the American Hospital Association.
Since 2000, hospitals of all types have provided more than $538 billion in uncompensated care to their patients. However, significantly, that number does NOT include other unfunded costs of care, such as underpayments from Medicare and Medicaid.
Want to know why your private insurance (non-Medicare or Medicaid) is so high? You're paying for all the above. What's happening is selective socialism - some of us are paying more to finance uncompensated or under-compensated care provided to others.
How much of that went to illegal aliens?
-
Yeah, but single payer isn't. Be careful what you wish for.
Monopoly much?
-
LOL! that's right... and I take it direct into the blood every day which involves an unwatered drop smeared around right on the gums... hoo boy.
That'll wake you up and get you hoppin'!
-
We were at an event this evening. My husband was talking to the chef, whom he knows well. The chef said a few years ago he got Synvisc injections for one knee and it really worked wonders. He then went on one of the Obamacare plans - and they refuse to authorize Synvisc for the other knee. So he's pretty much Hopalong Chef right now, and will continue to be so unless he gets decent insurance.
-
We were at an event this evening. My husband was talking to the chef, whom he knows well. The chef said a few years ago he got Synvisc injections for one knee and it really worked wonders. He then went on one of the Obamacare plans - and they refuse to authorize Synvisc for the other knew. So he's pretty much Hopalong Chef right now, and will continue to be so unless he gets decent insurance.
The problem is, getting an injection like that shouldn't be so expensive that you even need insurance for it. You should be able to just go get it done and pay cash. "Insurance" is rapidly becoming the gatekeeper for all medical care and it should not be that way.
-
Yep, and "Synvisc" isn't covered by most insurance anymore anyway (as of 2016). The cost of the dose is about $300., plus the cost of the doctor visit...another $250. or so? Just pay cash.
https://www.goodrx.com/blog/50-drugs-dropped-by-insurance-in-2016-including-viagra-and-qsymia/
-
Yep, and "Synvisc" isn't covered by most insurance anymore anyway (as of 2016). The cost of the dose is about $300., plus the cost of the doctor visit...another $250. or so? Just pay cash.
https://www.goodrx.com/blog/50-drugs-dropped-by-insurance-in-2016-including-viagra-and-qsymia/
Well, now, in view of Sandra Fluke crying about not being able to afford contraceptives (a Georgetown student can't afford a few bucks a month??) and supposedly needing Obamacare to pay for it, not having Viagra covered seems sexist, no?
Just more rip in the rip-off. Or is that R.I.P.-off?
-
What they are proposing is making catastrophic health insurance essentially free.
Why buy insurance at all, especially if all you really need is catastrophic coverage?
If you get cancer or have a heart attack, sign up and pay the penalty as you're being wheeled in... The penalty is nothing compared to what the coming bill would be... In the case of cancer the bills will keep rolling in for months and/or years and again the penalty trivial in comparison. If there's some waiting period doctors will get real good at patching you up long enough for it to expire before following up with the expensive procedures once you're covered.
-
What they are proposing is making catastrophic health insurance essentially free.
Why buy insurance at all, especially if all you really need is catastrophic coverage?
If you get cancer or have a heart attack, sign up and pay the penalty as you're being wheeled in... The penalty is nothing compared to what the coming bill would be... In the case of cancer the bills will keep rolling in for months and/or years and again the penalty trivial in comparison. If there's some waiting period doctors will get real good at patching you up long enough for it to expire before following up with the expensive procedures once you're covered.
What they have done is do away with catastrophic care plans. As much as those who whine about doctors not getting paid or people dying in the streets (a lie), you would think that keeping relatively inexpensive plans to cover major expenses would have been a priority, not the first thing in the crosshairs, but that would be if getting coverage for more people was the aim, instead of getting more coverage for some people. There is still the trillion dollar gorilla in the room, but it isn't PC to talk about that.
-
What they have done is do away with catastrophic care plans. As much as those who whine about doctors not getting paid or people dying in the streets (a lie), you would think that keeping relatively inexpensive plans to cover major expenses would have been a priority, not the first thing in the crosshairs, but that would be if getting coverage for more people was the aim, instead of getting more coverage for some people. There is still the trillion dollar gorilla in the room, but it isn't PC to talk about that.
Yes, but... If all you wanted was a catastrophic coverage plan, with the Senates penalty there's no reason to buy health insurance at all is my point. If something catastrophic happens to you, they have to take you at the cost of the penalty which is trivial compared to the cost of the catastrophe.
-
Yes, but... If all you wanted was a catastrophic coverage plan, with the Senates penalty there's no reason to buy health insurance at all is my point. If something catastrophic happens to you, they have to take you at the cost of the penalty which is trivial compared to the cost of the catastrophe.
Yeah! Dufi like these are the reason the phrase Fup a soup sandwich came into being!