Quick health care question about the next president.

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With money.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With other people's money.

FIXED

 

[sactoking]

Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With other people's money.

FIXED

And risk redistribution is the whole purpose of insurance, and insurance is the very lifeblood of capitalism. Are you going to call that socialism, too? We could always go back to no insurance at all. What... you didn't save up for that bypass surgery? Ahh... too bad, so sad.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Utter nonsense is what you are spewing. Yes, the purpose of insurance is risk distribution, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it. Without mandate, you are allowing people to saddle everyone else with the risk of having to treat them at the ER, without asking them to pay anything in return. Now that is the real nonsense, and it is what we already have, which is forcing hospitals to go bankrupt.

And yet more empty rhetoric that's supposed to make us afraid of these fantasy ER scammers, as though this is what everyone aspires to be if only they could get the chance, instead of IN REALITY being people who cannot afford to buy health insurance in the first place. And of course, you keep going down the path because you refuse to address the objections being brought up about Hillary's plan, namely how to make people pay for something they already can't afford...

Since you seem to be for the Obama plan, my questions for you are:

1. Obama's plan has a mandate that parents must provide insurance for all children. Is this not also making people pay for something they already can't afford?

2. How does the Obama plan make people pay for the mandated coverage of children?

3. Under the Obama plan, what happens when the people who choose not to buy the insurance need health care? Are they held responsible for the costs they incur or do the rest of us still absorb the cost?

4. Is the goal (UHC) healthcare for everyone, or healthcare for those who choose to have it? If the goal is the latter, don't we already have that?

I'd be more inclined to go with Obama's plan if there was a stipulation that anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance would be held fully, personally responsible for any health care costs they might incur. This would assume, of course, that the cost of the insurance be based on ability to pay.

The costs of the Clinton plan, as I see it, are based on a percentage of income, with little to no cost for those at the lower end of the earning scale. I'm only assuming that the costs for the Obama plan are similar.

#3 is why I think Obama's plan is nothing but feelgood bullshit that won't change much if anything.

 

[LostUte]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LostUte

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

leading to question #2: how do they plan on making new doctors to cover the newly insured? maybe they have magic beans that grow doctors.

Med schools are in the process of increasing enrollments about 30% over the next few years.

We need to increase at the same time 1) number of acceptances in current med schools, 2) number of NEW medical schools, and 3) number of applicants.

1) 30% more acceptances is substantial.
2) There have recently been a few med schools opening. More are seeking accreditation.
3) There are more than enough high quality applicants already.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
#3 is why I think Obama's plan is nothing but feelgood bullshit that won't change much if anything.

And Hillary's solution to garnish wages and probably even jail people who don't pay is better?

I'll be blunt. I'd rather have real-deal full-blown socialism than the blatant fascism of this "mandate." At least then we could cut out the corporate middlemen and just be truthful and call it taxation...

I really cannot believe that the Hillary zealots can't see the obvious implications involved with making the purchase of a for-profit corporate product a mandatory requirement of citizenship. Just a few months ago, you were arguing the evils of the health insurance companies, and now you want to institutionalize them permanently with mandates and subsidies. Nuttier than a walnut I tell you.

But I could argue this with you until I'm blue in the face. I already know you won't listen to a single word, that you'll respond with nothing but personal attacks and strange alien straw men from outer space. And then when I'm sick of being beaten over the head with your stupid zealotry, you'll spout some stupid "green as grass" comment as though that proved everything.

How about we forget about the ideology and "the goal," and focus on getting good quality affordable care to those who need and want it?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With other people's money.

FIXED

And risk redistribution is the whole purpose of insurance, and insurance is the very lifeblood of capitalism. Are you going to call that socialism, too? We could always go back to no insurance at all. What... you didn't save up for that bypass surgery? Ahh... too bad, so sad.

Compelling people to buy a product by legal force is not capitalism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With other people's money.

FIXED

And risk redistribution is the whole purpose of insurance, and insurance is the very lifeblood of capitalism. Are you going to call that socialism, too? We could always go back to no insurance at all. What... you didn't save up for that bypass surgery? Ahh... too bad, so sad.

Compelling people to buy a product by legal force is not capitalism.

I completely agree. But you're out of context here, read the quotes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: maddogchen
quick question: how do they propose to pay for the plans?

How do we pay for the private insurance we have now? With other people's money.

FIXED

And risk redistribution is the whole purpose of insurance, and insurance is the very lifeblood of capitalism. Are you going to call that socialism, too? We could always go back to no insurance at all. What... you didn't save up for that bypass surgery? Ahh... too bad, so sad.

Compelling people to buy a product by legal force is not capitalism.

I completely agree. But you're out of context here, read the quotes.

😕 I don't have to read them, that's why they're called "quotes" from the latin "quotus," meaning "not read."

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.


Nothing is scarier than having anyone in Washington decide what can or cannot be treated. Both plans are one step to universal health care. So if you like long waits for sub par care then universal health care is for you.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.


Nothing is scarier than having anyone in Washington decide what can or cannot be treated. Both plans are one step to universal health care. So if you like long waits for sub par care then universal health care is for you.

Your avatar indicates that you work in the health industry, so it's really depressing that you don't realize that universal healthcare works great in other countries, and UHC has nothing to do with "anyone in Washington deciding what can or cannot be treated". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Don't insurance companies decide what can or cannot be treated?

 

[lopri]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...opinion/04krugman.html

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.

you're refering to EMTALA, which only applies to hospitals that have agreed to accept payment from DHHS for medicare/aid. in the real world that virtually all hospitals, but it's still voluntary.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: lopri
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...opinion/04krugman.html

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured ? essentially everyone ? at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn?t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

That is my point exactly, and precisely the reason why we need someone who understand the issues, and not an empty suit feel good demagogue like Obama in the White House.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how the mandate can be considered a "small" difference. It's huge, for reasons already explained in this thread. Most everyone already wants health coverage, it's just they can't afford it. Mandating that they purchase something the already want but can't afford is just cruelty that in no way brings the UHC crowd closer to "the goal."

Did you miss the points about financial assistance to help low-income individuals buy insurance?

Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:

If the goal really is Universal health care coverage, the only way to do it is with mandates. There'll always be people who think something else is more important than health insurance, therefore they'll never be able to afford it.

I'm not a fan of the government health care idea but I believe if you're going to do it you have to go all in.

After considering all taxes, it has been demonstrated that Canadians don't really pay much more than Americans in taxes. How do they manage to provide health care for their citizens without 'mandating' they buy it. . . .

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how the mandate can be considered a "small" difference. It's huge, for reasons already explained in this thread. Most everyone already wants health coverage, it's just they can't afford it. Mandating that they purchase something the already want but can't afford is just cruelty that in no way brings the UHC crowd closer to "the goal."

Did you miss the points about financial assistance to help low-income individuals buy insurance?

Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:

If the goal really is Universal health care coverage, the only way to do it is with mandates. There'll always be people who think something else is more important than health insurance, therefore they'll never be able to afford it.

I'm not a fan of the government health care idea but I believe if you're going to do it you have to go all in.

After considering all taxes, it has been demonstrated that Canadians don't really pay much more than Americans in taxes. How do they manage to provide health care for their citizens without 'mandating' they buy it. . . .

In Canada, every citizen has coverage, but access can still be a problem. Based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey,[31] an estimated 1.2 million Canadians do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one, and just over twice that number do not have one because they "haven't looked". Those without a regular doctor are 3.5 times more likely to visit an emergency room for treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._care_systems_compared

I'm not real familiar with Canadian health care but, from the looks of that Wiki comparison, it seems that it is mandated. If I understand the system, all citizens are covered and noone could save any money by trying to opt out, which is the argument for the Obama plan.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how the mandate can be considered a "small" difference. It's huge, for reasons already explained in this thread. Most everyone already wants health coverage, it's just they can't afford it. Mandating that they purchase something the already want but can't afford is just cruelty that in no way brings the UHC crowd closer to "the goal."

Did you miss the points about financial assistance to help low-income individuals buy insurance?

Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:

If the goal really is Universal health care coverage, the only way to do it is with mandates. There'll always be people who think something else is more important than health insurance, therefore they'll never be able to afford it.

I'm not a fan of the government health care idea but I believe if you're going to do it you have to go all in.

After considering all taxes, it has been demonstrated that Canadians don't really pay much more than Americans in taxes. How do they manage to provide health care for their citizens without 'mandating' they buy it. . . .

In Canada, every citizen has coverage, but access can still be a problem. Based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey,[31] an estimated 1.2 million Canadians do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one, and just over twice that number do not have one because they "haven't looked". Those without a regular doctor are 3.5 times more likely to visit an emergency room for treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._care_systems_compared

I'm not real familiar with Canadian health care but, from the looks of that Wiki comparison, it seems that it is mandated. If I understand the system, all citizens are covered and noone could save any money by trying to opt out, which is the argument for the Obama plan.

I'm an American with health insurance, and I don't have a regular doctor...

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I'm an American with health insurance, and I don't have a regular doctor...

I guess I should have only pasted the line "In Canada, every citizen has coverage" from the article so those with ADD wouldn't lose the point of the post. :roll:

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.


Nothing is scarier than having anyone in Washington decide what can or cannot be treated. Both plans are one step to universal health care. So if you like long waits for sub par care then universal health care is for you.

Your avatar indicates that you work in the health industry, so it's really depressing that you don't realize that universal healthcare works great in other countries, and UHC has nothing to do with "anyone in Washington deciding what can or cannot be treated". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Don't insurance companies decide what can or cannot be treated?

You're correct, insurance companies can usually decide what to cover. But also realize that if they don't cover something you need, you could always switch insurance companies--although everything besides elective plastic surgery is usually covered to some extent.

There is nothing depressing about knowing that govt run health care doesn't work. Knowing that this fraud is being presented to the American taxpayer as something the government needs to do is way more depressing. Having govt run health care will lead to price controls, produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality. That last part is key where would you rather go the post office or the UPS store? I know the UPS store is nicer, the people are friendlier, and I'm out of there way quicker.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.


Nothing is scarier than having anyone in Washington decide what can or cannot be treated. Both plans are one step to universal health care. So if you like long waits for sub par care then universal health care is for you.

Your avatar indicates that you work in the health industry, so it's really depressing that you don't realize that universal healthcare works great in other countries, and UHC has nothing to do with "anyone in Washington deciding what can or cannot be treated". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Don't insurance companies decide what can or cannot be treated?

You're correct, insurance companies can usually decide what to cover. But also realize that if they don't cover something you need, you could always switch insurance companies--although everything besides elective plastic surgery is usually covered to some extent.

There is nothing depressing about knowing that govt run health care doesn't work. Knowing that this fraud is being presented to the American taxpayer as something the government needs to do is way more depressing. Having govt run health care will lead to price controls, produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality. That last part is key where would you rather go the post office or the UPS store? I know the UPS store is nicer, the people are friendlier, and I'm out of there way quicker.

How am I supposed to switch insurance companies when my insurance is through my employer? And even if I somehow could, why would the new insurance company cover preexisting conditions?
You are paranoid... Black markets, are you kidding?


I'd rather go to the post office. Cheaper, faster shipping, and they don't hold your packages until scheduled delivery like UPS. I've never had any problem with unfriendly employees. What's more, the USPS delivers to every address in America, while UPS and FedEx do not. When I worked in Yellowstone, the only way to me to receive or send deliveries was the USPS, and it was just as cheap as it is anywhere else. So it's really the perfect analogy. My parents don't have health insurance and can't afford it. The USPS and real government health insurance cover EVERYBODY. Even if you're older or have preexisting conditions, it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter if you are in a remote place like Yellowstone.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sactoking
Of course, the easiest solution to the Universal Health Care debate would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment to those who can't pay.

hospitals can refuse treatment to those who can't pay if the hospital also decides not to accept medicare. the hospital made the choice.

Actually if it's an emergency hospitals have to treat patients until they are stable and then they can give charity,which they do. Otherwise they can release or transfer the patient.


Nothing is scarier than having anyone in Washington decide what can or cannot be treated. Both plans are one step to universal health care. So if you like long waits for sub par care then universal health care is for you.

Your avatar indicates that you work in the health industry, so it's really depressing that you don't realize that universal healthcare works great in other countries, and UHC has nothing to do with "anyone in Washington deciding what can or cannot be treated". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Don't insurance companies decide what can or cannot be treated?

You're correct, insurance companies can usually decide what to cover. But also realize that if they don't cover something you need, you could always switch insurance companies--although everything besides elective plastic surgery is usually covered to some extent.

There is nothing depressing about knowing that govt run health care doesn't work. Knowing that this fraud is being presented to the American taxpayer as something the government needs to do is way more depressing. Having govt run health care will lead to price controls, produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality. That last part is key where would you rather go the post office or the UPS store? I know the UPS store is nicer, the people are friendlier, and I'm out of there way quicker.

How am I supposed to switch insurance companies when my insurance is through my employer? And even if I somehow could, why would the new insurance company cover preexisting conditions?
You are paranoid... Black markets, are you kidding?


I'd rather go to the post office. Cheaper, faster shipping, and they don't hold your packages until scheduled delivery like UPS. I've never had any problem with unfriendly employees. What's more, the USPS delivers to every address in America, while UPS and FedEx do not. When I worked in Yellowstone, the only way to me to receive or send deliveries was the USPS, and it was just as cheap as it is anywhere else. So it's really the perfect analogy. My parents don't have health insurance and can't afford it. The USPS and real government health insurance cover EVERYBODY. Even if you're older or have preexisting conditions, it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter if you are in a remote place like Yellowstone.

Calm down Morty--it was just an example. I think that Yellowstone being a National Park, and a federal program, could only use the USPS though, right? My point I was trying to make is that the US govt. is a bureaucratic nightmare. And adding Universal Health Care to that already broke medicare system is just ludicrous. When Medicare was started in the 60's LBJ stated that in 1990 medicare would cost 1 billion dollars--he was off slightly the cost in 1990 was 17 billion dollars. California is in 20 billion dollar deficit due to medi-Cal. We have 300 million people to cover--it's going to cost trillions and trillions of dollars. Do you think that the 158 million Americans paying taxes will be enough? It will take most of our paychecks--and it will be a bloated, non-efficient nightmare of a monopoly. It will make Canada's waiting lists look like a cake walk.

Here is a link to a short film about Canada's health care system. It's 25 minutes long, and it was done a few years ago. But it's sobering--this is what happens when govt is in charge.

http://www.onthefencefilms.com...deadmeat/deadmeat.html

edited for a spelling error.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how the mandate can be considered a "small" difference. It's huge, for reasons already explained in this thread. Most everyone already wants health coverage, it's just they can't afford it. Mandating that they purchase something the already want but can't afford is just cruelty that in no way brings the UHC crowd closer to "the goal."

Did you miss the points about financial assistance to help low-income individuals buy insurance?

Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:

If the goal really is Universal health care coverage, the only way to do it is with mandates. There'll always be people who think something else is more important than health insurance, therefore they'll never be able to afford it.

I'm not a fan of the government health care idea but I believe if you're going to do it you have to go all in.

After considering all taxes, it has been demonstrated that Canadians don't really pay much more than Americans in taxes. How do they manage to provide health care for their citizens without 'mandating' they buy it. . . .

They don't buy it, it's just provided for them and it's illegal to buy other health coverage. Plus the overall population of Canada is about 10% of what the U.S. is. A Google search turned just over 33 million in 2007. If they don't pay much more than we do, they must pay a lot since we have ten times the population.