21
   

Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.

 
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:13 pm
and those of you with insurance have to realize that the cost written off by the big companies that run the hospitals and ERs for treating "anyone" gets added somewhere else, it is still getting paid for.

they make a profit.
Yankee
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:19 pm
@Rockhead,
Is it a crime to make a profit?

Big Companies who provide heath care benefits absorb that cost as part of their overall cost of employee benefits. Most Big Companies probably pay half the total cost while the employee pays a good share of it.

I have yet to see how the House/Govt plan reduces that cost and improves on the plans already in existence.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:22 pm
@Yankee,
no.

the more people with no coverage that use the ER for help creates a cycle that can't be good for those with coverage. or profits.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:23 pm
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

Is it a crime to make a profit?

Big Companies who provide heath care benefits absorb that cost as part of their overall cost of employee benefits. Most Big Companies probably pay half the total cost while the employee pays a good share of it.

I have yet to see how the House/Govt plan reduces that cost and improves on the plans already in existence.


It will force all health insurance to charge less, as private insurers struggle to match the low costs of the Public option, which doesn't work on a for-profit basis. They will be forced to improve service and lower overall costs.

Is it a crime to make a profit? When your profits are made on denying people health care they need (and in many cases have been paying premiums to you for years to cover) yeah - it is. Health insurance should not be a for-profit industry, there is no justification for it.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:25 pm
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

Is it a crime to make a profit?


Only in the eyes of Obama and his Obamabots.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:36 pm
@Yankee,
I agree which is why they aren't done talking/hammering/debating yet. There's nothing that has come out of committee to date that's ready for a vote/signature.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:42 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I agree which is why they aren't done talking/hammering/debating yet. There's nothing that has come out of committee to date that's ready for a vote/signature.


I do believe you are wrong about that.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Obviously I'm not. If there was sufficient progress to meet the stated requirements of any plan presented for signature then they wouldn't still be trying to appease the blue dog dems.
Yankee
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
In theory or in fact?

You nor I know the impact of a potentially inferior product provided by the govt will have on the Private carriers.

Also, when was the first time this govt has ever done anything more efficiently than the private sector?

I have very little confidence in this Govts ability to provide a superior health care plan than those currently offered int he private sector.

Also, since when is a Private Company obligated to pay the full cost of health care benefits? Your ignorance is duly noted by your statement that "profits are made by DENYING people health care".
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:47 pm
@JPB,
cyclo -- I'm in favor of health care reform. I'm in favor of the President's ideas as they were presented. I'm not in favor of a single-payer plan, nor am I in favor of a plan that doesn't tackle the need to reduce the overall cost of health care. Show me where the President said he would sign a bill that requires a single-payer plan or doesn't deal with costs?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:56 pm
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

In theory or in fact?

You nor I know the impact of a potentially inferior product provided by the govt will have on the Private carriers.


If it's truly inferior, then the private carriers have nothing to fear. But there's no evidence the product will in fact be inferior.

Quote:

Also, when was the first time this govt has ever done anything more efficiently than the private sector?


The purpose of government is not efficiency but redundancy. You mis-understand their goal.

Quote:
I have very little confidence in this Govts ability to provide a superior health care plan than those currently offered int he private sector.

Also, since when is a Private Company obligated to pay the full cost of health care benefits? Your ignorance is duly noted by your statement that "profits are made by DENYING people health care".


I was speaking of the insurance companies themselves, who make profits only by denying health care to people who need it and who have in many cases been paying money for a long time under the assumption that they would get it.

Others are not as confident as you seem to be in the effectiveness of private health insurance, or the economic costs of it. If they truly are as superior as you seem to think they are, then they don't have much to worry about.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:58 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

cyclo -- I'm in favor of health care reform. I'm in favor of the President's ideas as they were presented. I'm not in favor of a single-payer plan, nor am I in favor of a plan that doesn't tackle the need to reduce the overall cost of health care. Show me where the President said he would sign a bill that requires a single-payer plan or doesn't deal with costs?


He hasn't spoken much in support of a single-payer system, to my knowledge, almost no politicians are discussing this. But I wonder, why are you against it? It seems by far the most efficient way to run the system, in my opinion.

Obama has repeatedly said that health care should not add to the deficit or debt over the next decade; I guess I can find some quotes for you if you like.

Cycloptichorn
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Others are not as confident as you seem to be in the effectiveness of private health insurance, or the economic costs of it. If they truly are as superior as you seem to think they are, then they don't have much to worry about.


I keep hearing about this 5 year window whereby companies will no longer be able to offer private plans.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:10 pm
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

Quote:
Others are not as confident as you seem to be in the effectiveness of private health insurance, or the economic costs of it. If they truly are as superior as you seem to think they are, then they don't have much to worry about.


I keep hearing about this 5 year window whereby companies will no longer be able to offer private plans.


Oh, and who told you that? My guess would be various Republican politicians and websites, who desperately want to avoid having the Dems pass any legislation at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I tend to be opposed to monopolies in general, government monopolies in particular. I don't think a single-payer public option will be the most efficient plan in the least. I do think that an affordable/subsidized public option for the uninsured is a reasonable option to handle one of the three major needs for reform.

We don't only need to stem the growth of health care costs, we need to turn the curve around and the current plans don't do that.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:27 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I tend to be opposed to monopolies in general, government monopolies in particular.


Most Americans feel this way.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:50 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

dear ms lettybetty, there is no Obama health care plan, there is whatever the house and senate come up with. the cost will be immense and will be borne by we the people. it really comes down to what our society decides to spend our tax dollars on. the really unfortunate thing (in my mind) is that our current health care system is fatally broken and there should be major discussions going on defining what the current problems are and how best to correct them. this is not happening. all the decisions will be made for political reasons and not the best interest of our society.


I agree with that. It is indeed what politicians do.

We have a hermaphrodite system which appears to combine many of the worst aspects of government programs and the free market.

Government entitlement systems in something so subject to individual judgements in specific cases and the tradeoffs between prevention and cure/management as health care are inherently subject to both abuse by providers & patients and self-defeating distortions at the hands of the brueaucrats who manage it.

Government also encourages corporations to provide health care benefits through various tax incentives (and now new threatened penalties if they don't). Unfortunately these benefits tend to separate the consumer from the choices that would otherwise be associated with the decision to use these services. Companies are increasingly attuned to the costs, because in the information age, there is no such thing as pooled risk - corporations pay their insurers based on the actual claims of their employees, and the delay time between claims and increased company premiums is very short. One result is that many companies are increasingly focusing on wellness programs to both improve employee's health and lower their costs.

Much is made about the number of uninsured in this country. However, few commentators note or acknowledge the disincentive provided to a very large portion of our population through the MEDICAID program - they get their care from the state at no cost at all (and get to suffer through all the hassles that such bureaucracies always inflict on their customers). MEDICARE is also part of the problem through its (typical for a bureaucracy) combination of wasteful support of many unnecessary procedures and inadequate payments for and restrictions on many others. Where I live it is very hard to find a doctor who will take patients whose medical coverage is only through MEDICARE.

In short, government itself has significantly distorted the market for medical care through its various well-intended programs for the poor and the old. Now it presumes to "cure" the problems it has caused by added application of the same poision.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:56 pm
The government and private insurance companies can't both dig in my pockets for health insurance...

I already pay for my health insurance and so does my company. Why should we both be taxed so others can have health insurance? I see no future in that and predict that most companies will simply do away with heath insurance as a benefit and encourage employees to get on the governments plan... We are already paying for it so might as well use it, right?

That totally sucks.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:09 pm
@McGentrix,
I don't see a problem, McG. Once the company loses the tax expense of its portion, and employees lose the pretax advantage of the payments, company insurance will quickly become a thing of the past.

This is planned so everyone has health insurance. Just not very good insurance.


ETA: In other words, you're right.

Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:16 pm
@roger,
So, Rog. Obama proposes and Congress disposes. I'll get it right eventually.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 09:23:07