Making Individual Health Insurance Illegal

[Crabcake Johnny]

Al, nice duck and weave but you didn't tell me about the current financial shape of Medicare and Medicaid - since the gov't runs both of those programs I think that's a good indicator of how well they controls costs and how well they manage the money based off of what they collect in tax revenue.

So Al, again - how's it going financially over there with Medicare and Medicaid?

 

[Guest]

Al, nice duck and weave but you didn't tell me about the current financial shape of Medicare and Medicaid - since the gov't runs both of those programs I think that's a good indicator of how well they controls costs and how well they manage the money based off of what they collect in tax revenue.

So Al, again - how's it going financially over there with Medicare and Medicaid?

John, you are ex-military. How is it going with the defense budget? Do you wake up each morning worrying about it? No. Why? Because you know we'll find the money somewhere for the wars all Americans love to fight. (We're a warlike people... no one likes a good fight like Americans.)

Does the military "make" money or is it efficient? So why is Medicare and Medicaid supposed to be? Government is not in the biz to make money... or even to be efficient.

You guys argue cost and efficiency and "the uninsured are all fat and illegal and irresponsible." It does not work. No one CARES!

No one cares what a war costs as long as we win (or looks like we are winning.) And no one cares what a new bridge costs or a new highway, or anything else so long as they see some benefit. People will pay taxes to get the things they want... and I believe they want health care.

What do you want, John? I'll answer it for you. You want to keep your business alive. That's fine. But the support for the good service you bring to the public is not highly valued because no one wants to pay for it.

What happened to travel agents when the airlines decided their services were not needed? Well, correlate that to the public (or the carriers) and you have your answer.

Ask yourself this. Why are serious people proposing total overhaul of the entire health care financing AND delivery system? Because it works so well for so many? Think again.

Hey guys, why did it take a hundred years to end segregation? Because no one wanted to (least of all the parents of you Southern guys here)... until enough people DID want to... and were able to convince others (via Bull Connors dogs!) that it was wrong to make some people sit on the back of a bus or not allowed in a restaurant. (I have no doubt that if you neo-cons (led by Winter, bill####, Freddie, and the other homo/zeno phobes) were around in the late 50s and early 60s that you'd all have Lester Maddox ax handles... and I no doubt that a few of you would have no difficulty rationalizing the bombing of a church... hell I know one of you would gladly light the fuse!)

Well, now, after 15 years (Clinton era) there are enough people who feel it is wrong for some people to get health care and not others. Of course none of YOU guys here feel that way, but believe it or not, you are in the minority.

John, you want to stop this train? You will have to do it on some other basis than cost and efficiency.

I remember in the civil rights movement how Goldwater and the "respectable" opponents to the voting rights bill tried to argue "state's rights." No one gave a hoot about "state's rights" when the news was showing dead children from bombed churches.

John, et. al. has it ever occurred to even ONE of you that maybe, just maybe... letting everyone have access to the healthcare system IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO? Yeah, I know it gets in the way of your greed for money, but I know some of you go to a church or temple and I can only believe that at least for a few minutes you think of someone other than yourselves.

Al

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"letting everyone have access to the healthcare system"

Al...I'm going to jump in and jump right out because I would rather read this thread than be part of it.

I believe that most people agree with the statement at the top of this post. But we don't want the govt. running the show. Sure, the UHCs and Aetna's could be more efficient.

Let's try reforming the system but without the govt. exchange program. Take that money ( that's a lot) and use it to help subsidize the uninsured.

If it doesn't work in five years, the govt. can step in and try their luck. In fact, this same idea was floated by someone, but I forget who.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Al never gets my point. I don't like the current system and reform is long overdue.

There are people who are willing to pay for health care but can't due to pre-ex conditions. There are people willing to pay, but not a "$800" premium because of rated conditions.

However, MD is an example of a combination of free market and gov't control. Want group? Get it. Want an individual plan? Go buy it. Don't qualify? Go get MHIP which is affordable and comprehensive and state run.

Kids in MD? Free health care - MCHIP if you're "poor" and if you're not poor it's subsidized.

This is a perfect mix of private choice but the state steps up to the plate to fill in the gaps.

Al, the gov't could offset premiums and require every state to have their own version of MHIP and it would be BILLIONS less than any current proposal.

But Al, please understand that I do not believe a SINGLE person in this country should go without health care and I'm not a fan of the status quo.

 

[jamesflou]

Health Reform Link: Read all 1000 plus pages.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

[midwestbroker]

Follow the money...

The proposed defence budget for 2010 is $663.8 Billion.

DefenseLink News Release: DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal

Medicare costs $499 Billion to fund for 45 million Americans. (Kaiser Foundation fact)

The population of America is just under 310 million

So, 14.5% of the population costs $499 billion to insure. So, to do 100% of the population would be approx 6.6 times or approx $3.3 trillion.

Now, the Medicare trust is expected to run out of money in 2017 (mind you in 2003 it was projected at 2026).

Even if we took the entire defense budget which Al keeps referring to, that would only pay for a fraction of the cost to insure all Americans.

Looking at how Americans would pay for this:

Americans would be paying into the system with premiums. The current cost of Medicare to a beneficiary is $96.40 per month (or more pending on their income). A family of 4 would cost $385.60 per month. Mind you there is no max out of pocket. So, if you are sick, you would have cheaper premiums but would have higher medical costs since you would owe 20% with no cap.

Plus, the medical community would be in shambles since Medicare fees are a fraction of what usual fees are. Dr's would quit, hospitals would close, and the system would be a disaster.

But hey, we are Americans, we could make it work right? Look at our auto industry...oh wait...Toyota is #1...look at our electronics...err...look at clothing...ummm...movies...yea...we make great movies. Just wait until Obama hires his Hollywood czar.

 

[JustinUpright]

Why even ask Al3 any question?
I don't see any answers other than the racist remarks made towards the southerners that enslaved his family.
News flash Al3 your family sold your ancestors into slavery!
It had nothing to do with me or anyone else that lives in the south today!

 

[Dave020]

Al's a black guy? Sorry, African-American?

 

[Ron Van D]

John, Al3 doesn't want to get your point.

Al3, FYI, my daughter in law was let go from her job because of her absences due to health issues (she may have MS) and doesn't get the COBRA option, so I know about the issues first hand.

You, like so many others, keep blaming insurance for the high cost of health care when it is nothing more than a reflection of the costs.

The system is far from perfect and if I were king, I would make quite a few changes.
1. When you leave a company you take your policy with you, no COBRA needed. (Even better, let's eliminate employer sponsored coverage altogether.)
2. Everyone in the state goes into the same policy form, thus eliminating the "blocking" of business that companies get away with. If everyone is in the same group you would always have healthy dollars coming into the plan, offsetting the unhealthy members that invariably evolve.
3. No first dollar coverage. All policies would have a minimum deductible of $2000. This would cause decreased utilization and give incentive to people to shop better. (The medical professionals and institutions would have to be forced to be more transparent.) When my daughter was recommended to get an MRI on her knee she called the different providers in her network and found a provider charging $1300. The provider that was recommended by her doctor was $2300. Because she behaved like a smart consumer, a little time shopping saved her a lot of money.

There are others, but I won't drag this out since logic means nothing to a liberal spending everyone else's money.

On another note, why does everybody always blame the evil, greedy insurance companies when someone doesn't get the coverage they think they "deserve"? While I feel bad for the teenager that died of cancer in California, all we heard was how Cigna killed her. Why isn't anyone pointing at the doctors or the hospitals who refused to donate their services and facilities. I mean really, all the doc had to give up was some of his time; no money needed. The hospital could have said "Hey, use this O.R., we aren't using it this afternoon." Insurance companies have never denied anyone a procedure or medicine, they have only refused to pay for it. But nobody ever talks about the docs or hospitals that won't give whats needed.

 

[Winter_123]

You health guys don't really hate the government. You guys just love your own greed. If there was a government plan that would pay you $300 to sell a zero-prem GI individual (under-age) plan (similar to what MA commish pays) you guys would be cheering Obama and the Dems louder than a drunk Raider fan!

Yeah, no hypocrisy on this board!

One of the many things that is missing from your thinking is the possibility/probability that government can frig things up badly enough so that everyone loses. You buy into the black and white binary thinking of libs which says that any system that takes agents out of the equation must be good in and of itself and that the only reason agents object to the proposed system is due to commissions being lost. This has elements of truth as far as it goes but it doesnt go very far. The full story may be that some proposals are not good for anyone.

In my state for example, and in in many guaranteed issue states, the commissions for agents were basically eliminated or are mere pittances and yet the rates for consumers are the highest in the nation. In other words, it is a frigging mess and everyone lost. Is this what you want for the country? You talk about agents here hating government but you are the polar opposite where you hate agents enough to see a half-assed, expensive system implemented in the country as long as it eliminates agents.

Lay off the kool-aid and think in terms of business solutions- not one liners from a Joan Baez album.