What can the democrats learn by the loss of Cockley

[Red Dawn]

So what do you call your country of nearly 20% left out?

The Majority. I know it sucks Dave that you don't have any health care but there are clinical studies going on with Mental Illness that might be able to use you as a case study.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So what do you call your country of nearly 20% left out?

For the sake of this argument, let's assume the numbers in this thread are correct and that 84% of the population has insurance and is relatively happy with it. Why are the 16% who aren't insured my problem to insure? You do know that a sizable percentage of that 16% uninsured group could afford to buy insurance, right?

The problem, Dave, is that you have no backing for any of your arguments. You come in here, make overly emotional and unsubstantiated claims, and then run away when asked to back your claims up with reputable sources.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The Majority. I know it sucks Dave that you don't have any health care but there are clinical studies going on with Mental Illness that might be able to use you as a case study.

 

[MotF Bane]

The Majority. I know it sucks Dave that you don't have any health care but there are clinical studies going on with Mental Illness that might be able to use you as a case study.

Sure, case study for the newest edition of a straitjacket.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sure, case study for the newest edition of a straitjacket.

Just don't let them put him in a "work release" program working on computers - suddenly, the SETI client will be installed everywhere.

 

[nick1985]

The Majority. I know it sucks Dave that you don't have any health care but there are clinical studies going on with Mental Illness that might be able to use you as a case study.

rofl

 

[nick1985]

Just don't let them put him in a "work release" program working on computers - suddenly, the SETI client will be installed everywhere.

rofl x2

 

[MotF Bane]

Just don't let them put him in a "work release" program working on computers - suddenly, the SETI client will be installed everywhere.

:awe:

 

[Carmen813]

Dave?

Ok, seriously. Call your representatives, and urge them to get together with people who are experts in health care. There is still time. Have them propose something which oriented towards improving the standards of care, and a safety net for the unemployed/rejected for prior illnesses.

Then when there is something besides hackery offered more people will support it, and the Reps will become irrelevant

My concern about a safety net for rejected for prior illnesses is that it will be really easy to exploit.

For a long time I thought the easy solution would to just have individuals who have pre-existing conditions be eligible to enroll in a government run solution of some kind. The problem is that it then becomes very easy for companies to make everything cost prohibitive a "pre-existing condition." You could make it so only specific illnesses count, but then I think you get into some moral gray areas.

Not to mention there isn't a way for it to be financially sustainable without imposing taxes.

 

[spidey07]

My concern about a safety net for rejected for prior illnesses is that it will be really easy to exploit.

For a long time I thought the easy solution would to just have individuals who have pre-existing conditions be eligible to enroll in a government run solution of some kind. The problem is that it then becomes very easy for companies to make everything cost prohibitive a "pre-existing condition." You could make it so only specific illnesses count, but then I think you get into some moral gray areas.

Not to mention there isn't a way for it to be financially sustainable without imposing taxes.

HIPPA already covers this. You can't be denied for pre-existing conditions as long as you don't have a lapse in group coverage. In your government pool that's still group coverage so there is no worry about pre-existing conditions. This is also why COBRA was created.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, here's an idea. Why not consider health insurance as part of a temporary unemployment benefit, and having a subsidized "assigned risk" insurance pool for those who are unable to get coverage due to past illness?

For the first part I think we're getting into the territory where government bennies make it better to not work than to work. For the second I think that is an excellent, sensible idea, but we need to understand that costs in these increased risk pools will be, um, increased. The equivalent SR-22 car insurance program works both by raising prices and by reducing the level of benefits. This is going to be problematic for health insurance. To use Carmen as an example, an SR-22 type program might cover him for everything except cancer at normal cost, with a cancer rider at a much higher cost. Since most people are going to be more copacetic risking not having full coverage on their automobile than risking not being covered for the thing that might well kill them, at some point the taxpayers are probably going to be on the hook for a lot of people. I think this is an interesting idea, but it's going to be difficult and expensive to implement.

It seems to me that at some point we have to do two things, break health insurance from employment and break people of this expectation that our every health care need should be paid by someone else. For the first, we have an enormous problem being competitive in any industry because of health care costs; ours are tied to the employer, other countries' are tied to the individual via taxes or taxes plus an individual supplemental policy. My preference would be standardized catastrophic health care policies purchased by the individual, across state lines, with pre-tax dollars. Make them non-qualification, shared risk policies so that Carmen pays the same as do I, with government-mandated coverage or each level, and over the whole population costs equal out. You still have competition, including not-for-profits like BCBS and co-ops. Coverage would have to either be mandatory (which honestly bothers me) or else comes in over time, to prevent people from buying insurance only when ill, or else set up a limited government program to provide coverage for people who choose not to buy insurance, with mandatory garnishment and claims on government checks to recover the money. For that matter, take the first X dollars directly off of taxes, so that there is no benefit to not buying insurance. No free rides.

For the other, day-to-day medical costs need to be paid out of pocket. A $40 office visit becomes a $120 office visit in large part because it gets filed with insurance, adding a great deal of paperwork and a delay in receiving payment. I have little respect for the people with $400 cell phones with $100 monthly charges who are telling me they can't afford a doctor's visit. Since in any system we as taxpayers and policy purchasers ultimately pay our own health costs - as we should - moving the dollars into the insurance company's (or government's) hands only to return it later to the health care provider so that we don't have to makes no sense.

 

[jpeyton]

Even more good news: we can kick Joe Lieberdouche to the curb. He is no longer the 60th vote. Strip him of his Senate chairs and let him rot out the rest of his term.

 

[Carmen813]

HIPPA already covers this. You can't be denied for pre-existing conditions as long as you don't have a lapse in group coverage. In your government pool that's still group coverage so there is no worry about pre-existing conditions. This is also why COBRA was created.

There are problems with your plan. When my public insurance plan ends (soon) I will need to buy insurance privately. My job doesn't offer it. NYS has public (or at least state run, sort of like the public option in the House bill) insurance I can buy, but it's prohibitively expensive. I make $1200 a month (tops), rent is $560...insurance for two people (for coverage that is bare minimum with a cancer history) is $532 a month. That leaves me about $150 for two people to eat and pay bills on.

Hence the reason I said in another post it doesn't even make sense for me to work. I should just volunteer, keep my public insurance, and use student loans to live on until I can get a "real" job.

 

[PJABBER]

There are problems with your plan. When my public insurance plan ends (soon) I will need to buy insurance privately. My job doesn't offer it. NYS has public (or at least state run, sort of like the public option in the House bill) insurance I can buy, but it's prohibitively expensive. I make $1200 a month (tops), rent is $560...insurance for two people (for coverage that is bare minimum with a cancer history) is $532 a month. That leaves me about $150 for two people to eat and pay bills on.

Hence the reason I said in another post it doesn't even make sense for me to work. I should just volunteer, keep my public insurance, and use student loans to live on until I can get a "real" job.

Is your income coming from being a TA or something? Is the work mandatorily tied into your degree program?

I worked my way through undergraduate school at almost exactly those income and expense levels, but I was single and had no medical expenses. I walked everywhere or took the bus as I was at an urban campus, so no car expenses.

I also worked my way through graduate school, but I also had backup money I got by selling a house I had bought in the intervening years. I worked while at grad school and made more money by passing on internships and staying in the private sector. Almost all of my courses were available at night so I could work almost full time then as well.

Your living expenses are minimal, I doubt if you can cut back in any meaningful way even if you go to fried dough pizzas and lots of spaghetti like I did during the lean years.

I would say that you need to get a second job or a better job. By far this is the easiest solution even in an economy where good jobs can be scarce. Aim for a job that has benefits. Your wife can also secure a job. Even with low pay it would be worth it if she has access to family health benefits.

Though I went through this train of thought and reminiscence, I don't want to compare my circumstances from long ago with yours. Particularly, I know that ALL expenses are higher now than when I was in school. It is really tough to get by but I hope you can get the pieces put together. It will be worth it once you are back in the working world and, hopefully, get the payoff from the effort and sacrifices.

 

[OrByte]

Is your income coming from being a TA or something? Is the work mandatorily tied into your degree program?

I worked my way through undergraduate school at almost exactly those income and expense levels, but I was single and had no medical expenses. I walked everywhere or took the bus as I was at an urban campus, so no car expenses.

I also worked my way through graduate school, but I also had backup money I got by selling a house I had bought in the intervening years. I worked while at grad school and made more money by passing on internships and staying in the private sector. Almost all of my courses were available at night so I could work almost full time then as well.

Your living expenses are minimal, I doubt if you can cut back in any meaningful way even if you go to fried dough pizzas and lots of spaghetti like I did during the lean years.

I would say that you need to get a second job or a better job. By far this is the easiest solution even in an economy where good jobs can be scarce. Aim for a job that has benefits. Your wife can also secure a job. Even with low pay it would be worth it if she has access to family health benefits.

Though I went through this train of thought and reminiscence, I don't want to compare my circumstances from long ago with yours. Particularly, I know that ALL expenses are higher now than when I was in school. It is really tough to get by but I hope you can get the pieces put together. It will be worth it once you are back in the working world and, hopefully, get the payoff from the effort and sacrifices.

In other words Carmen, get off your lasy ass and go get more jobs!!

The republican answer is that we are all too lazy...and its because of our laziness that we don't succeed.

Its your choice Carmen, you choose to be poor, If you were republican you would have walked 2 hours to school in the morning in the snow, worked your fingers to the bone night and day, made every sacrafice humanly possible, carved out a successful life, became a millionaire, married an anglo supermodel, bought multiple mansions...and be a warm, loving, christian husband and father.

its your choice man!!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

For the sake of this argument, let's assume the numbers in this thread are correct and that 84% of the population has insurance and is relatively happy with it. Why are the 16% who aren't insured my problem to insure? You do know that a sizable percentage of that 16% uninsured group could afford to buy insurance, right?

What you're missing is the possibility that you yourself may not be able to afford insurance coverage for you and your family. What would happen if for some reason you lost your job or came down with cancer and could no longer work and were then unable to obtain insurance as a result of your cancer? Let's suppose that you are falsely accused of rape or child molestation or child pornography or whatever and then lose your job and your career, regardless of your merit and ability, and are then unable to work in your field again and support yourself? Let's suppose that the CEO of your company loots all of its assets and flees to Bimini with his favorite bimbo and then as a result you lose your job and are unable to find another one since the nation's economy is in the dumps? (There are probably numerous ways you could end up being part of the uninsured.)

If misfortune strikes, you will be glad that there is a safety net to care for you (while free market dogmatists regard you as an irresponsible moocher).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

For the first part I think we're getting into the territory where government bennies make it better to not work than to work. For the second I think that is an excellent, sensible idea, but we need to understand that costs in these increased risk pools will be, um, increased. The equivalent SR-22 car insurance program works both by raising prices and by reducing the level of benefits. This is going to be problematic for health insurance. To use Carmen as an example, an SR-22 type program might cover him for everything except cancer at normal cost, with a cancer rider at a much higher cost. Since most people are going to be more copacetic risking not having full coverage on their automobile than risking not being covered for the thing that might well kill them, at some point the taxpayers are probably going to be on the hook for a lot of people. I think this is an interesting idea, but it's going to be difficult and expensive to implement.

It seems to me that at some point we have to do two things, break health insurance from employment and break people of this expectation that our every health care need should be paid by someone else. For the first, we have an enormous problem being competitive in any industry because of health care costs; ours are tied to the employer, other countries' are tied to the individual via taxes or taxes plus an individual supplemental policy. My preference would be standardized catastrophic health care policies purchased by the individual, across state lines, with pre-tax dollars. Make them non-qualification, shared risk policies so that Carmen pays the same as do I, with government-mandated coverage or each level, and over the whole population costs equal out. You still have competition, including not-for-profits like BCBS and co-ops. Coverage would have to either be mandatory (which honestly bothers me) or else comes in over time, to prevent people from buying insurance only when ill, or else set up a limited government program to provide coverage for people who choose not to buy insurance, with mandatory garnishment and claims on government checks to recover the money. For that matter, take the first X dollars directly off of taxes, so that there is no benefit to not buying insurance. No free rides.

For the other, day-to-day medical costs need to be paid out of pocket. A $40 office visit becomes a $120 office visit in large part because it gets filed with insurance, adding a great deal of paperwork and a delay in receiving payment. I have little respect for the people with $400 cell phones with $100 monthly charges who are telling me they can't afford a doctor's visit. Since in any system we as taxpayers and policy purchasers ultimately pay our own health costs - as we should - moving the dollars into the insurance company's (or government's) hands only to return it later to the health care provider so that we don't have to makes no sense.

That was a "toss something into the hat" sort of thing. I did mention temporary though. I don't see where it's beneficial to have people lose their job, find they can't afford COBRA and then lose their homes due to a catastrophe. So yeah, I'm "liberal" enough to be willing to provide a safety net. Not in perpetuity however.

As far as Carmen's situation goes, he's a productive member of society who's screwed. Given his situation it's unlikely that he's going to be able to improve his financial situation in the short term. Would I subsidize people like him? Yeah I would. Would I pay his wife to have eleventy billion kids? Nope.

I'm for social programs that are intelligently run and targeted. Ideally private charity would help people out, but honestly who could afford to take care of a quarter million dollars of health care out of their pockets? Not I.

The problem is that what (IMO at least) ought to be and what is, isn't. The theory is great, but in practice it's not so grand. That's where we need to make wise choices. We need people to run programs with the authority to be flexible, but accountable for their actions. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[werepossum]

There are problems with your plan. When my public insurance plan ends (soon) I will need to buy insurance privately. My job doesn't offer it. NYS has public (or at least state run, sort of like the public option in the House bill) insurance I can buy, but it's prohibitively expensive. I make $1200 a month (tops), rent is $560...insurance for two people (for coverage that is bare minimum with a cancer history) is $532 a month. That leaves me about $150 for two people to eat and pay bills on.

Hence the reason I said in another post it doesn't even make sense for me to work. I should just volunteer, keep my public insurance, and use student loans to live on until I can get a "real" job.

Actually you need to either work more, or not work at all. It is illustrative that your state's state-run insurance is "prohibitively expensive", yet so many people seem to think that if we only make a giant version of the same thing it will somehow become cheap.

There is no way we can build a society where two people can live on one average part-time job, let alone generate the wealth to make higher education possible. Can't be done. If your solution is for me to support you and your wife, then I too want to go to graduate school and be supported. Sorry, but this problem has little to do with health insurance.

 

[PJABBER]

In other words Carmen, get off your lasy ass and go get more jobs!!

I used a personal example and I do believe that the first thing someone has to do is take a hard look at how much you are doing for yourself.

Carmen is a super bright guy. He's in grad school. He is in an academic area that requires an understanding of complex issues. I would think his realistic current private market value is likely between $50 and $70K per annum, maybe closer to $50K in the public sector unless he goes federal.

I may not agree with him on his positions but I don't knock him for being stupid.

The stupid I often see in otherwise smart and educated people is that they self limit themselves in stupid ways.

They don't take that second job as a security guard in a computer center where they can read textbooks all night long (a job I actually had in my first foray into the wonderful world of grad studies being just out of the Army) just because they would feel stupid in a uniform doing a stupid job, that just happens to pay them for sitting there and reading textbooks and writing research papers on someone else's dime.

They complain about hard life is when they work less than eight hours a day. They don't encourage their wife to get a job because it is not cool for them to not be the (low, low, low) wage earner (ask any married medical student without a silver spoon in their mouths how well that works.)

As a taxpayer, I don't feel obligated to provide a lot of freebies unless the individual has done as much as possible for themselves first. There are a lot of temporary safety nets in the U.S., let's not make them permanent entitlements while offering a hand up to those who are in unfortunate circumstances beyond their ability to cope with.

Medical coverage and pre-existing condition exclusions are something else entirely. WhipperSnapper listed some extraordinary, but not entirely unusual circumstances that should allow access to a safety net and there certainly should be ways other than permanent entitlements to deal with those.

We should be finding ways to encourage the private sector to provide coverage - and mandates are the wrong way to go about this, while incentives/tax credits might be the right way.

 

[Ozoned]

My concern about a safety net for rejected for prior illnesses is that it will be really easy to exploit.

For a long time I thought the easy solution would to just have individuals who have pre-existing conditions be eligible to enroll in a government run solution of some kind. The problem is that it then becomes very easy for companies to make everything cost prohibitive a "pre-existing condition." You could make it so only specific illnesses count, but then I think you get into some moral gray areas.

Not to mention there isn't a way for it to be financially sustainable without imposing taxes.

People with prior illnesses (pre-existing conditions) should not be able to place a burden on another person until ALL of their assets have been depleted.

 

[OutHouse]

People with prior illnesses (pre-existing conditions) should not be able to place a burden on another person until ALL of their assets have been depleted.

then its medicaid, foodstamps, welfare, pubic housing, free cheese. and if there are kids in the family, there is WIC involved as well.

yea that will teach them!!! oh wait we still pay for it.

so which one is less money? i really can not understand why people think this way.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What you're missing is the possibility that you yourself may not be able to afford insurance coverage for you and your family. What would happen if for some reason you lost your job or came down with cancer and could no longer work and were then unable to obtain insurance as a result of your cancer? Let's suppose that you are falsely accused of rape or child molestation or child pornography or whatever and then lose your job and your career, regardless of your merit and ability, and are then unable to work in your field again and support yourself? Let's suppose that the CEO of your company loots all of its assets and flees to Bimini with his favorite bimbo and then as a result you lose your job and are unable to find another one since the nation's economy is in the dumps? (There are probably numerous ways you could end up being part of the uninsured.)

If misfortune strikes, you will be glad that there is a safety net to care for you (while free market dogmatists regard you as an irresponsible moocher).

No, I am not missing that at all. I recognize the need for a safety net, but my reply to Dave was for a different reason altogether. Dave is someone who can afford insurance but would prefer others pay for it for him.

 

[Carmen813]

Is your income coming from being a TA or something? Is the work mandatorily tied into your degree program?

I worked my way through undergraduate school at almost exactly those income and expense levels, but I was single and had no medical expenses. I walked everywhere or took the bus as I was at an urban campus, so no car expenses.

I also worked my way through graduate school, but I also had backup money I got by selling a house I had bought in the intervening years. I worked while at grad school and made more money by passing on internships and staying in the private sector. Almost all of my courses were available at night so I could work almost full time then as well.

Your living expenses are minimal, I doubt if you can cut back in any meaningful way even if you go to fried dough pizzas and lots of spaghetti like I did during the lean years.

I would say that you need to get a second job or a better job. By far this is the easiest solution even in an economy where good jobs can be scarce. Aim for a job that has benefits. Your wife can also secure a job. Even with low pay it would be worth it if she has access to family health benefits.

Though I went through this train of thought and reminiscence, I don't want to compare my circumstances from long ago with yours. Particularly, I know that ALL expenses are higher now than when I was in school. It is really tough to get by but I hope you can get the pieces put together. It will be worth it once you are back in the working world and, hopefully, get the payoff from the effort and sacrifices.

The work is not mandatory for my degree program. However I do get paid around $20 an hour to work 16 hours a week. That's pretty damn good money for a graduate student, but the hours make another job sort of impossible..or at least difficult. I can cut my living expenses some...but not anywhere near enough to pay for the insurance. Working two jobs is an option and I'm starting to think about it as a last resort, but I'm not exactly what I'd call healthy and it's hard enough just doing my part-time job and school. It's more important long term that I do well in my master's program.

*Edit* Forgot to point out that because I was offered a full scholarship, I am not eligible for work-study on campus. I would need to find an extremely flexible second job off-campus, I'm debating going to work as a checkout clerk at a grocery store. If that can give me benefits and only require like 8-16 hours a week it might be doable.

My wife will be looking for a job again soon, right now she is trying to finish her BA. She has significantly more medical problems than I do, but she can work full-time....hell, that's how we lived for the past year. I don't really care about being the low wage earner.

Eventually I will need to take a full-time position as an intern to graduate, probably this time next year. That's when my finances will really be a disaster since that position won't be paid.

I currently have relatively minimal medical expenses, but my wife receives lots of prescriptions for chronic pain. I need a PET scan once a year and my doctors like to take my blood every time they see me (*cough* malpractice concerns).

 

[Carmen813]

People with prior illnesses (pre-existing conditions) should not be able to place a burden on another person until ALL of their assets have been depleted.

I'll do my best to not let my kids get sick at the worst possible moment in their career development, thanks for the tip. Though I do suggest you spend some time learning how insurance actually works.

Anyway, I don't really want a handout. I just want things to be a little easier. I could afford $300-$350 a month for insurance for the two of us. It's just when it's costing as much, or more, than my rent for the month that I start getting pissed. I may end up going with a high deductible plan (see hnyhealthcore.com for the ones I'm considering), at least that way if we have a relapse we won't be totally financially screwed. I'm just concerned about my wife's prescriptions and some recurrent tonsillitis she has.

 

[werepossum]

The work is not mandatory for my degree program. However I do get paid around $20 an hour to work 16 hours a week. That's pretty damn good money for a graduate student, but the hours make another job sort of impossible..or at least difficult. I can cut my living expenses some...but not anywhere near enough to pay for the insurance. Working two jobs is an option and I'm starting to think about it as a last resort, but I'm not exactly what I'd call healthy and it's hard enough just doing my part-time job and school. It's more important long term that I do well in my master's program.

My wife will be looking for a job again soon, right now she is trying to finish her BA.

Eventually I will need to take a full-time position as an intern to graduate, probably this time next year. That's when my finances will really be a disaster. M

I currently have relatively minimal medical expenses, but my wife receives lots of prescriptions for chronic pain. I need a PET scan once a year and my doctors like to take my blood every time they see me (*cough* malpractice concerns).

And you still have money problems? You don't know enough people.