Hate this steaming turd of a bill? Blame Bush

[whottt]

Ok well in that case. The existing government insurance plans for the poor and needy already do not work as they are supposed to. It's doesn't take a genius to see this, and in my case I have worked in a field that collected debt from people who were supposed to be covered by medicare, medicaid and champus. This is not a lie on my part, there was an entire credit bureau devoted to collecting these debts. And you could make a of a lot of money doing it if if you were any good at it.

It's not that hard to go look at the recent articles in the statesmen and see the phsyciatrist that got popped for raping the medicare system for nearly a million dollars in just about 4 years. There is an entire division of local government soley devoted to this sort of fraud. Why do you suppose they need a division devoted to prosecuting individuals defrauding the system if is something that happens on a limited scale?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok well in that case. The existing government insurance plans for the poor and needy already do not work as they are supposed to. It's doesn't take a genius to see this, and in my case I have worked in a field that collected debt from people who were supposed to be covered by medicare, medicaid and champus. This is not a lie on my part, there was an entire credit bureau devoted to collecting these debts. And you could make a of a lot of money doing it if if you were any good at it.

It's not that hard to go look at the recent articles in the statesmen and see the phsyciatrist that got popped for raping the medicare system for nearly a million dollars in just about 4 years. There is an entire division of local government soley devoted to this sort of fraud. Why do you suppose they need a division devoted to prosecuting individuals defrauding the system if is something that happens on a limited scale?

They are expanding medicaid and thats about it other than the prescription drug benefits of senior citizens. The vast majority of the legislation had nothing to do with the government run insurance programs.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Its like you have no idea what was actually passed.

Fine medicare is prone to corruption. I would argue that its still more efficient in distributing care than the private insurerers but that is neither here nor there because the bill does not increase access to medicare.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Under the bill, insurers would have to submit proposed premium increases for review by the appropriate state authority or the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If any increases were deemed unreasonable and unjustified, the insurer would have to lower premiums, provide rebates or take other appropriate actions. In addition, the bill would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide federal oversight of rates, as well as helping states determine enforcement measures and techniques for monitoring market behavior. The rate board, which would include consumer representatives, insurance and healthcare representatives, and economists, would likely set annual parameters for rate increases.

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/stor...#ixzz0iykr8clE

[whottt]

They are expanding medicaid and thats about it other than the prescription drug benefits of senior citizens. The vast majority of the legislation had nothing to do with the government run insurance programs.

The government is ing running the insurance industry. How hard is this to see? Geezus.

And you mean aside from that cap gains tax, law making it mandatory, and that fee that can add up for 2.5% of your income if you do not give them(the insurance companies) your money.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Its like you have no idea what was actually passed.

I know what was passed, it's not like it's exclusive knowledge. You just don't think the is important that I think it important. You keep telling yourself I don't know what I am talking about, it's not going to make you forcing people to buy insurance a good thing, it makes you an asshole telling other people how to live their lives. You don't understand it now but you will once that dictation is made to you on something you don't like.

Fine medicare is prone to corruption.

If I said medicare I meantmedicaid.

And you miss the point...it's that people are prone to corruption. Especially when there are huge finances involved. And the bigger the finances involved, the more corrupt people are going to be interested.

I would argue that its still more efficient in distributing care than the private insurerers but that is neither here nor there because the bill does not increase access to medicare.

Medicaid...whatever. And you think it's efficient because you haven't seen the numbers of people ed over by it. The irony is you think the government that routinely failed to cover these people because of it's own bottomline is all of a sudden going to start getting ethical with these mutibillion dollar en ies it is in bed with.

Why don't you ing talk the details with an insurance agent if you are looking for a detailed conversation. Be sure and get back to me on how many of them are upset bout this. I know I know...it's because they are good human beings that want to help the needy

[whottt]

You can lie all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is if this was such a great deal it wouldn't need to be mandated and imposed upon a significant portion of the population. The very rich and the very poor would simply go off by themselves and work things out...they wouldn't be dragging every ing citizen of this country into it with them.

[Marcus Bryant]

You can lie all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is if this was such a great deal it wouldn't need to be mandated and imposed upon a significant portion of the population. The very rich and the very poor would simply go off by themselves and work things out...they wouldn't be dragging every ing citizen of this country into it with them.

True, a much better point of compromise would be to provide direct assistance to those who need it rather than to regulate an industry to the point of de facto control.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can lie all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is if this was such a great deal it wouldn't need to be mandated and imposed upon a significant portion of the population. The very rich and the very poor would simply go off by themselves and work things out...they wouldn't be dragging every ing citizen of this country into it with them.

Jesus ing christ. What am I lying about?

Its like your putting your hands over your ears and acreaming "LALALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

I mean there is even an antifraud contingent to the bill.

Its funny you guys don't even know whats in it other than a few buzzwords that the press gives you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

True, a much better point of compromise would be to provide direct assistance to those who need it rather than to regulate an industry to the point of de facto control.

The do that too.

Anyway, philisophically, I think your stance is naive. There are emperical examples of your ideals and that would be the American East and midwest circa 1875.

Health care is not a self correcting market any more than water is. I persoanlly like what Teddy Roosevelt did. Hes a personal hero of mine.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure he is. Medicare care is not a "self-correcting" market as it is highly regulated and distorted by government interventions at multiple levels. And there is no comparison to water use and access.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure he is. Medicare care is not a "self-correcting" market as it is highly regulated and distorted by government interventions at multiple levels. And there is no comparison to water use and access.

Water is even more regulated than health care its not even funny. Or did you miss that part?

I think this is a better question. Do you think that there are no markets that do not self correct?

[Marcus Bryant]

Very few, and close to none in the long run. And there are plenty of regs in health care that distort the market and lead to rising cost, and not just on the insurance side. One obvious one is the Nixon era restriction on hospitals in local communities, favored, of course, by existing hospitals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Very few, and close to none in the long run. And there are plenty of regs in health care that distort the market and lead to rising cost, and not just on the insurance side. One obvious one is the Nixon era restriction on hospitals in local communities, favored, of course, by existing hospitals.

We have differences at the base philosophical level.

[fyatuk]

It's asshats like you without insurance who have to go to the Emergency Room for any issues that caused the Govt to ALREADY be paying 47% of health care dollars BEFORE this bill even passed. Who do you think picks up that $150 minimum tab when you can't pay?

Stop generalizing. Some of us don't carry insurance because we wouldn't use it anyway.

I had health insurance for one year before I needed to cut it to be able to afford expenses. I never used it.

In the last 15 years, my total medical bills has been.... $600. All paid out of pocket.

There were ways to fix this without adding compulsory insurance. And no way compulsory insurance should be done with private companies. Amounts to a government subsidy of them.

[boutons_deux]

"were ways to fix this without adding compulsory insurance"

which are?

[fyatuk]

"were ways to fix this without adding compulsory insurance"

which are?

Oh, doing things to actually reduce base costs such as loan forgiveness and increased grants for Md, RN, and NP programs. Tax credits for keeping equipment up to date.

Open up more avenues for hospitals to recover unpaid ER bills. Also, a small tax increase to help fund ERs.

Require employers of a certain size (based on number of employees, I haven't looked to see what a good number is) to contribute to employees health care plan without providing them. Aka, employee can choose what he wants the the employer pays his share towards it.

And on a state level do the exhange to allow individuals to purchase plans at group plan rates.

Not allow insurance to cancel policies for risks that are discovered during their policy period.

Support clinics like Texas MedClinic for non-immediately-life-threatening conditions. These kinds of clinics are often significantly cheaper than the emergency room, and can usually work with patient financing.

Improve HSA's and catastrophic insurance as an alternative to current managed-health style insurance plans.

Lots of things they could have done that would have had a big impact.

Also, if you're going to do compulsory insurance, you MUST have a government owned risk pool. At least in my opinion. Leaving compulsory insurance in the hands of private businesses while just regulating their rates is utter crap.

And yes, I think the same with auto insurance, and that annoys me too. At least they don't require full coverage on auto insurance. Meanwhile, they want to require full insurance for health. Wouldn't be so bad a pill to swallow if they just mandated catastrphic coverage.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One thing that I notice is a lot of concentration on the first person viewpoint.

"I don't use health insurance."
"I don't need auto liability coverage."

You cannot look at things like that as a policy maker in my opinion.

The reason why they mandated compulsory auto insurance was because in the early twentieth century, people were getting screwed by people not having anyway to have their liability paid for. People were injured maimed and whatnot because they didn't have health coverage and those that hit them could not pay.

The answer was to make everyone have liability insurance and then put in a system to review insurance premiums to control costs. Thats what we have here and the same exact arguments were put forth 100 years ago are being used here.

[Yonivore]

One thing that I notice is a lot of concentration on the first person viewpoint.

"I don't use health insurance."
"I don't need auto liability coverage."

You cannot look at things like that as a policy maker in my opinion.

The reason why they mandated compulsory auto insurance was because in the early twentieth century, people were getting screwed by people not having anyway to have their liability paid for. People were injured maimed and whatnot because they didn't have health coverage and those that hit them could not pay.

The answer was to make everyone have liability insurance and then put in a system to review insurance premiums to control costs. Thats what we have here and the same exact arguments were put forth 100 years ago are being used here.

Except that it doesn't work with liability insurance either. The vast majority of people responsible for urban traffic accident STILL don't have liability insurance.

All you have is a bunch of people compelled to buy insurance they rarely use. I've never been in an accident where I was found at fault but, I've been hit twice by people without insurance.

[whottt]

Fuzzy tell me something...as a former Insurance Agent...which clients did the insurance generally prefer more(as in which clients allowed them to stay in business and turn a profit)...healthy one or sickly ones?

Do you think this legislation has changed the motivations of insurance companies from one of profit to one of goodwill and altruism?


If the cost continues to go up, and there is definitely going to be an increase in insurance claims with everyone forced to have it, if they can't raise the fees on the poor and sickly, who do you think is going to end up footing the aditional costs, whether they have contributed to the rises or not?

Do you think that is anyway fair?

Just curious.



It seems to me a much, much cheaper solution, would simply be to provide medical education for free. To anyone seeking obtain it.



Not only would this increasse the number of doctors which would in turn lower the cost of medical care in the areas of supply in demand, it would also make the average person much more educated and knowledgable in terms of staying healthy. It would also keep profiteers out of a field which is a basic human right(:roll ingeyes) and would be more controlled by people genuinely wanting to help rather than those seeking to become rich.

And we'd never have a shortage of doctors either.

Not only that, but more minds involved in the medical field could only speed up advancements in medicine.



It would much cheaper and much more effective to simply make all forms of medical education free.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except that it doesn't work with liability insurance either. The vast majority of people responsible for urban traffic accident STILL don't have liability insurance.

All you have is a bunch of people compelled to buy insurance they rarely use. I've never been in an accident where I was found at fault but, I've been hit twice by people without insurance.

I can make up too.

The vast majority of people think your full of .

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy tell me something...as a former Insurance Agent...which clients did the insurance generally prefer more(as in which clients allowed them to stay in business and turn a profit)...healthy one or sickly ones?

Do you think this legislation has changed the motivations of insurance companies from one of profit to one of goodwill and altruism?


If the cost continues to go up, and there is definitely going to be an increase in insurance claims with everyone forced to have it, if they can't raise the fees on the poor and sickly, who do you think is going to end up footing the aditional costs, whether they have contributed to the rises or not?

Do you think that is anyway fair?

Just curious.



It seems to me a much, much cheaper solution, would simply be to provide medical education for free. To anyone seeking obtain it.



Not only would this increasse the number of doctors which would in turn lower the cost of medical care in the areas of supply in demand, it would also make the average person much more educated and knowledgable in terms of staying healthy. It would also keep profiteers out of a field which is a basic human right(:roll ingeyes) and would be more controlled by people genuinely wanting to help rather than those seeking to become rich.

And we'd never have a shortage of doctors either.

Not only that, but more minds involved in the medical field could only speed up advancements in medicine.




It would much cheaper and much more effective to simply make all forms of medical education free.

Rhetorical question which s immaterial because they will no longer be able to ask on a application about one.

Of course they are profit motivated in a market with a vertical demand slope. Thats the whole point to needing controls.

The rest is a pretty pathetic strawman.

Were not even talking about socialized medicine but nevertheless you parrot the same nonsense.

[whottt]

Rhetorical question which s immaterial because they will no longer be able to ask on a application about one.

It's not a rhetorical question to the people who don't get sick or ill that will see rate increases.

The rest is a pretty pathetic strawman.

Were not even talking about socialized medicine but nevertheless you parrot the same nonsense.

The only nonsense is you seeming to think rates aren't ever going to rise, that they will spend money indefinitely on the extensively unhealthy penalties will not be applied to the non-insured and that a government ordered mandate to buy insurance isn't socialized medicine.