Help me to understand McCains health care plan.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am not saying that the government is completely innocent, but we can't just take that away. These are not cars we are talking about here. This is people's health. You are comparing apples and oranges. People want to blame most of the problem on govt involvement because that is easy to do, but the problem is that simply taking it away will result in a lot of other problems. They may not effect the upper middle class and the rich but they will effect lots of people.

Sure we can, when we're the ones piling on these regulations. This just happened last week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...l.html?pagewanted=1&hp

WASHINGTON ? More than one-third of all Americans will soon receive better insurance coverage for mental health treatments because of a new law that, for the first time, requires equal coverage of mental and physical illnesses.

Representative Patrick J. Kennedy speaking at a rally in March on Capitol Hill. Mr. Kennedy and Representative Jim Ramstad, third from left, led the fight in the House for mental health parity.

The requirement, included in the economic bailout bill that President Bush signed on Friday, is the result of 12 years of passionate advocacy by friends and relatives of people with mental illness and addiction disorders. They described the new law as a milestone in the quest for civil rights, an effort to end insurance discrimination and to reduce the stigma of mental illness.


This is something that the Democrats buried in the bailout bill. Rather odd, and silly, how dumping money into self-inflicted problems like caffeine intoxication, eating disorders, and compulsive gambling is somehow a top priority. :roll:
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

You can still buy a plan covering such procedures if you want to.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

:roll: Just because your mom had breast cancer does not mean her INSURANCE should cover reconstructive surgery. "reconstructive surgery" is not "minimum" - it's EXTRA. If your plan doesn't cover it - tough.



******************8


Why am I not surprised that this forum doesn't understand what INSURANCE is? INSURANCE is not "health care" - it's a risk sharing tool - NOTHING more. Why you people think that it's a "right" is because you don't understand what Insurance is. INSURANCE should be able to be bought in whatever customized format you wish. Want just major med(which most younger people could get by with)? Fine - just the basic maj med. HAve a family? Fine - have a family plan that covers the basics and let people add on extras as they see fit. Really, this isn't very tough if people just sat down and thought about it. But unfortunately too many people just sit back and think the gov't should just give it to us... totally ignoring the fact that what may be provided could make everyone worse off.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

:roll: Just because your mom had breast cancer does not mean her INSURANCE should cover reconstructive surgery. "reconstructive surgery" is not "minimum" - it's EXTRA. If your plan doesn't cover it - tough.



******************8


Why am I not surprised that this forum doesn't understand what INSURANCE is? INSURANCE is not "health care" - it's a risk sharing tool - NOTHING more. Why you people think that it's a "right" is because you don't understand what Insurance is. INSURANCE should be able to be bought in whatever customized format you wish. Want just major med(which most younger people could get by with)? Fine - just the basic maj med. HAve a family? Fine - have a family plan that covers the basics and let people add on extras as they see fit. Really, this isn't very tough if people just sat down and thought about it. But unfortunately too many people just sit back and think the gov't should just give it to us... totally ignoring the fact that what may be provided could make everyone worse off.


Insurance is necessary for major healthcare...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

:roll: Just because your mom had breast cancer does not mean her INSURANCE should cover reconstructive surgery. "reconstructive surgery" is not "minimum" - it's EXTRA. If your plan doesn't cover it - tough.



******************8


Why am I not surprised that this forum doesn't understand what INSURANCE is? INSURANCE is not "health care" - it's a risk sharing tool - NOTHING more. Why you people think that it's a "right" is because you don't understand what Insurance is. INSURANCE should be able to be bought in whatever customized format you wish. Want just major med(which most younger people could get by with)? Fine - just the basic maj med. HAve a family? Fine - have a family plan that covers the basics and let people add on extras as they see fit. Really, this isn't very tough if people just sat down and thought about it. But unfortunately too many people just sit back and think the gov't should just give it to us... totally ignoring the fact that what may be provided could make everyone worse off.


Insurance is necessary for major healthcare...

And you have a point I assume?
 

Gabornski

Member
Jan 5, 2004
191
0
71
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Jeff7
I think high prices of malpractice insurance also factor into this. I've read that that can influence doctors to move out of a certain region, or even country, because the cost of that insurance is just too high.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...ref=health&oref=slogin

HOUSTON, Oct. 4 ? In Texas, it can be a long wait for a doctor: up to six months.

That is not for an appointment. That is the time it can take the Texas Medical Board to process applications to practice.

Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional health care to some long-underserved rural areas.



I guess they can thank George Walker Bush.


Maybe a federal limit on malpractice would help. Could you have a federal health insurance program only available to people that can't get health insurance? Not run by the feds just negotiated by them. There are companies that get together to get better rates from insurance companies. Wouldn't a federal program be able to get the lowest rates because of the amount of people it could possibly cover. Probably would be a bureaucratic nightmare to figure how who would qualify and how much of the cost they could pay. I don't know much about medicare/medicaid so maybe this is already being done.

 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
I'm disappointed that neither candidate is addressing the core problem with healthcare - namely, why costs are so much higher than those of other developed countries?

If costs are low, people would be responsible for their own healthcare payments, without relying on insurance (except for catastrophic coverage). Ideally, we would have a combination of Health Savings Accounts and coverage for catastrophic incidents. Perhaps being responsible for paying your own health care would force people to try to lead healthier lives, taking all preventive measures possible; on the other hand, there's always help for 'hand of god' type events.

A while ago, Vic (I think) posted an article that addressed why health care costs are so high. It would've been nice if either candidate had used that article as a basis for their plans; however, perhaps that's too much to expect in today's politics...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: nixium
I'm disappointed that neither candidate is addressing the core problem with healthcare - namely, why costs are so much higher than those of other developed countries?

If costs are low, people would be responsible for their own healthcare payments, without relying on insurance (except for catastrophic coverage). Ideally, we would have a combination of Health Savings Accounts and coverage for catastrophic incidents. Perhaps being responsible for paying your own health care would force people to try to lead healthier lives, taking all preventive measures possible; on the other hand, there's always help for 'hand of god' type events.

A while ago, Vic (I think) posted an article that addressed why health care costs are so high. It would've been nice if either candidate had used that article as a basis for their plans; however, perhaps that's too much to expect in today's politics...

:thumbsup:
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: nixium
I'm disappointed that neither candidate is addressing the core problem with healthcare - namely, why costs are so much higher than those of other developed countries?

If costs are low, people would be responsible for their own healthcare payments, without relying on insurance (except for catastrophic coverage). Ideally, we would have a combination of Health Savings Accounts and coverage for catastrophic incidents. Perhaps being responsible for paying your own health care would force people to try to lead healthier lives, taking all preventive measures possible; on the other hand, there's always help for 'hand of god' type events.

A while ago, Vic (I think) posted an article that addressed why health care costs are so high. It would've been nice if either candidate had used that article as a basis for their plans; however, perhaps that's too much to expect in today's politics...

Ideally, yes but as we have seen so many times in our past you cannot force people to be responsible. It is really easy to just say, "well, fuck them if they are irresponsible!" but then you have to consider that not everyone who has these problems are middle age working adults. What do you do about the kids whose parents suck when it comes to this sort of thing? What do you do about the elderly or disabled? That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then of course there is the issue of coming up with a way to get the costs down to the point where they are readily available for pretty much everyone and keep them down without sacrificing quality. Quality is the really tough part of that equation.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Gabornski

Maybe a federal limit on malpractice would help. Could you have a federal health insurance program only available to people that can't get health insurance? Not run by the feds just negotiated by them. There are companies that get together to get better rates from insurance companies. Wouldn't a federal program be able to get the lowest rates because of the amount of people it could possibly cover. Probably would be a bureaucratic nightmare to figure how who would qualify and how much of the cost they could pay. I don't know much about medicare/medicaid so maybe this is already being done.

You could, but it would go bankrupt, fast.

Medicare costs about $10k per person per year it covers. The federal program would have to charge something similar to cover all the risky people.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: nixium
I'm disappointed that neither candidate is addressing the core problem with healthcare - namely, why costs are so much higher than those of other developed countries?

If costs are low, people would be responsible for their own healthcare payments, without relying on insurance (except for catastrophic coverage). Ideally, we would have a combination of Health Savings Accounts and coverage for catastrophic incidents. Perhaps being responsible for paying your own health care would force people to try to lead healthier lives, taking all preventive measures possible; on the other hand, there's always help for 'hand of god' type events.

A while ago, Vic (I think) posted an article that addressed why health care costs are so high. It would've been nice if either candidate had used that article as a basis for their plans; however, perhaps that's too much to expect in today's politics...

Ideally, yes but as we have seen so many times in our past you cannot force people to be responsible. It is really easy to just say, "well, fuck them if they are irresponsible!" but then you have to consider that not everyone who has these problems are middle age working adults. What do you do about the kids whose parents suck when it comes to this sort of thing? What do you do about the elderly or disabled? That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then of course there is the issue of coming up with a way to get the costs down to the point where they are readily available for pretty much everyone and keep them down without sacrificing quality. Quality is the really tough part of that equation.

Well in my country, we have so called 'Government hospitals' which are basically run by the government, paid for by the taxpayers. All doctors are required to spend several months interning in one of these institutions. *Anyone* can get care here, for free or heavily subsidised rates. However, the quality is low and there are long waiting lists; so anyone with cash uses a private hospital. While in my country, these hospitals are hotbeds of corruption, bribery and inefficiency, a workable system could be developed.

My point is, fix the fundamental problem first. If most of the populace has access to cheap health care as outlined in the scenario above, then it is possible to place in stop-gap measures for those who still cannot afford those levels of care. Perhaps a combination of government and private charity? Or Government hospitals as mentioned above?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: nixium
Well in my country, we have so called 'Government hospitals' which are basically run by the government, paid for by the taxpayers. All doctors are required to spend several months interning in one of these institutions. *Anyone* can get care here, for free or heavily subsidised rates. However, the quality is low and there are long waiting lists; so anyone with cash uses a private hospital. While in my country, these hospitals are hotbeds of corruption, bribery and inefficiency, a workable system could be developed.

My point is, fix the fundamental problem first. If most of the populace has access to cheap health care as outlined in the scenario above, then it is possible to place in stop-gap measures for those who still cannot afford those levels of care. Perhaps a combination of government and private charity? Or Government hospitals as mentioned above?

Again, maintaining quality is the really tough part of the equation. This country will never stand for quality below a certain level. People can yack all day about entitlement, taxes, and deficits, but they know that is the reality and the bottom line which won't change.

You run into problems like people being really unhappy with the fact that just because they are elderly, disabled, or children with crap parents that they have to deal with the worst of quality health care. I agree with them. I believe we can do better than that.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
GenX, you said "btw the more I read about healthcare in this country the less I am of the opinion an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. The majority of a persons healthcare costs happen in the last 24 months of their life. Those last 24 months cant be prevented because they are dying. And we are spending through the nose to prevent something the happens to every human at one point in their lifetime(death). I suppose if you want to make an argument the quality of care can go up or we can extend a viable enjoyable lifestyle that is one thing. But we all die, and we all seem to spend a shitload of money preventing it when the time comes."

I'm going to guess you don't have any kids? Take a look at how much the bill is when a woman has a baby - and god forbid if that baby has any health problems. Then you have the multiple check-ups, vaccinations, yearly physicals, etc, etc


 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Ok, so basically McCains plan is extremely complicated, will harm some people, help fewer people, and will send 5,000 per family from the government DIRECTLY to health insurance companies.

Yeah, it smells fishy.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: nixium
I'm disappointed that neither candidate is addressing the core problem with healthcare - namely, why costs are so much higher than those of other developed countries?

If costs are low, people would be responsible for their own healthcare payments, without relying on insurance (except for catastrophic coverage). Ideally, we would have a combination of Health Savings Accounts and coverage for catastrophic incidents. Perhaps being responsible for paying your own health care would force people to try to lead healthier lives, taking all preventive measures possible; on the other hand, there's always help for 'hand of god' type events.

A while ago, Vic (I think) posted an article that addressed why health care costs are so high. It would've been nice if either candidate had used that article as a basis for their plans; however, perhaps that's too much to expect in today's politics...


Like any one running for office would ever have the guts to call people out for un healthy lifestyles. That and 1 party completely ignores the illegal problem. Those are the 2 big issues that keep costs so high compared to other countries. Those will never change unless there is a magical pill the keeps people thin and republicans take over completely to toss out the illegals and take boarder security seriously.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

:roll: Just because your mom had breast cancer does not mean her INSURANCE should cover reconstructive surgery. "reconstructive surgery" is not "minimum" - it's EXTRA. If your plan doesn't cover it - tough.



******************8


Why am I not surprised that this forum doesn't understand what INSURANCE is? INSURANCE is not "health care" - it's a risk sharing tool - NOTHING more. Why you people think that it's a "right" is because you don't understand what Insurance is. INSURANCE should be able to be bought in whatever customized format you wish. Want just major med(which most younger people could get by with)? Fine - just the basic maj med. HAve a family? Fine - have a family plan that covers the basics and let people add on extras as they see fit. Really, this isn't very tough if people just sat down and thought about it. But unfortunately too many people just sit back and think the gov't should just give it to us... totally ignoring the fact that what may be provided could make everyone worse off.
Once again, both of you miss the point. Who said it was a "right"? My example of BCRSurgery is a requirement in 49 states. It's not "EXTRA" stuff. Your state decided that it was required for all insurance policies. Just like state taxes, if you don't like it, move to the only state that doesn't make it a requirement. Until then, accept the fact that your mom/sister/daughter will be covered in case this ever happens to them. It has nothing to do with any "rights" but what states have decided are important to them.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

Sounds like pushing people to buy a Lexus when all they require is a Toyota. We should be pushing people towards cheaper minimal coverage so they can afford it rather than trying to get everyone a luxury vehicle that they can't afford.
I'm sure you would have a different stance if your mom had breast cancer. Yes, reconstructive breast surgery is just like being forced to pay for extra options in a car. :roll:

:roll: Just because your mom had breast cancer does not mean her INSURANCE should cover reconstructive surgery. "reconstructive surgery" is not "minimum" - it's EXTRA. If your plan doesn't cover it - tough.



******************8


Why am I not surprised that this forum doesn't understand what INSURANCE is? INSURANCE is not "health care" - it's a risk sharing tool - NOTHING more. Why you people think that it's a "right" is because you don't understand what Insurance is. INSURANCE should be able to be bought in whatever customized format you wish. Want just major med(which most younger people could get by with)? Fine - just the basic maj med. HAve a family? Fine - have a family plan that covers the basics and let people add on extras as they see fit. Really, this isn't very tough if people just sat down and thought about it. But unfortunately too many people just sit back and think the gov't should just give it to us... totally ignoring the fact that what may be provided could make everyone worse off.
Once again, both of you miss the point. Who said it was a "right"? My example of BCRSurgery is a requirement in 49 states. It's not "EXTRA" stuff. Your state decided that it was required for all insurance policies. Just like state taxes, if you don't like it, move to the only state that doesn't make it a requirement. Until then, accept the fact that your mom/sister/daughter will be covered in case this ever happens to them. It has nothing to do with any "rights" but what states have decided are important to them.

Fine, then there is no problem here(except for the fact I don't want to be in that pool). Why did you bring it up if it's already covered as a "minimum" in every state but 1.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Once again, both of you miss the point. Who said it was a "right"? My example of BCRSurgery is a requirement in 49 states. It's not "EXTRA" stuff. Your state decided that it was required for all insurance policies. Just like state taxes, if you don't like it, move to the only state that doesn't make it a requirement. Until then, accept the fact that your mom/sister/daughter will be covered in case this ever happens to them. It has nothing to do with any "rights" but what states have decided are important to them.

Great, which is why your mom/sister/daughter have it if they want. I don't see the harm, however, in some random guy buying an insurance plan from the 50th state.

I can drive over state borders and buy cigarettes.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Once again, both of you miss the point. Who said it was a "right"? My example of BCRSurgery is a requirement in 49 states. It's not "EXTRA" stuff. Your state decided that it was required for all insurance policies. Just like state taxes, if you don't like it, move to the only state that doesn't make it a requirement. Until then, accept the fact that your mom/sister/daughter will be covered in case this ever happens to them. It has nothing to do with any "rights" but what states have decided are important to them.

Great, which is why your mom/sister/daughter have it if they want. I don't see the harm, however, in some random guy buying an insurance plan from the 50th state.

I can drive over state borders and buy cigarettes.
I agree, you should be able to go to any state or country fits your needs best. However, your needs probably aren't in the majority if 49 states have individually chosen it as a requirement and you view it as "extra". ;)
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Fine, then there is no problem here(except for the fact I don't want to be in that pool). Why did you bring it up if it's already covered as a "minimum" in every state but 1.
Because it brings us back to the original point, that the requirement would go away under McCain's plan when almost every state has deemed it as necessary. It's just one of a plethora of protections that would disappear under his plan. You may not want to pay for that protection, but your state says it's important enough to be a min requirement. You can always move to a different state or country that doesn't have min requirements, but to strip all of the requirements that states have already set isn't logical IMO.

RE: my post:
2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".

 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
I'm not listening to anyone's solution until they first tell me why we have a problem in the first place.


The problem is simple, we have more health care options available to us now. In the past people who had many of the diseases and conditions we see died. Our ability to treat those conditions has vastly improved, but unfortunately it is not an infinite resource. Like any other resource that is limited it must be rationed because what we have and what we want are not equal.

The really big problem is that new treatments are not like new cars. We really do not feel bad that poor people do not have a new lexus, but we do feel very bad when poor people are dying because they cannot receive an expensive treatment because they lack a form of health insurance that will cover it.

Some people believe that we really do have the resources to treat everyone, and that they are being held back because of profit/illuminati/government regulations/evil bunnies/strict health care standards/gwbush/a lack of compassion. The real problem is that, if the 47 million people without health insurance are not receiving the health care they need, than when they are given the insurance, we will need to immediately come up with enough resources to treat a rough 20% increase in the patient population.

Unfortunately politics does not seem to offer a good solution, neither plan strikes me as being very good.

Normally I would promote some form of deregulation, free market, or other libertarian ideal. But, in the case of health care, the negatives are too great for me to be sure the positives would outweigh them.
 

AlienCraft

Lifer
Nov 23, 2002
10,539
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
I'm not listening to anyone's solution until they first tell me why we have a problem in the first place.
The growth of The Insurance Industry into the medical field, and The Hegallian Dialectic.
Oh, and the Imperfect Nature of Man in juxtaposition with Pure Capitalism.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Fine, then there is no problem here(except for the fact I don't want to be in that pool). Why did you bring it up if it's already covered as a "minimum" in every state but 1.
Because it brings us back to the original point, that the requirement would go away under McCain's plan when almost every state has deemed it as necessary. It's just one of a plethora of protections that would disappear under his plan. You may not want to pay for that protection, but your state says it's important enough to be a min requirement. You can always move to a different state or country that doesn't have min requirements, but to strip all of the requirements that states have already set isn't logical IMO.

RE: my post:
2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".


But that brings us back to why insurance is so expensive. As has been posted, State's put everything under the sun in there due to the lobby of xyz practitioners who want it mandated minimum coverage. Why do I as a male want to be paying for that risk factor? I should be able to have coverage that fits me - no?