House Health Care Debacle-WARNING POLITICAL CONTENT

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3171910
Dang, I can't listen... everyone is asleep still.
Question: Do you think the mentality of the "Sue Happy Americian" is going to change? The system in Canada doesn't receive too many actual complaints, Canadians grew up with the health care the way it is now, they usually express appreciation for the care they receive, no matter how inadequate. Americans act like they are owed something.... the best. And when that best isn't delivered... lawsuit. I'm sure the statistical minds are find a comparison of lawsuits in Canada verses US and the outcomes of both groups. Soon, when you sue the hospital, you'll be suing the government.... good luck with that. We don't have the Sue Drain in Canada.... how is that going to fit into the equation down here?
My wife spent 18 years working for a law firm that specialized in defense including malpractice. Now she works for an insurance company's litigation division. I asked that question, she is still laughing.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Here's my healthcare plan:
For people that are able to work but have health issues that insurance companies refuse to cover or charge so much as to make it impossible to afford, the government would develop co-ops to assist them in medical coverage. Everyone in the co-op would have to pay, just like any insurance, and the only govt money would be tax incentives (like $0 federal tax on income derived from the treatment of people in the co-op)to hospitals and doctors who accept the co-op insurance.
This will have two benefits that will it a money-maker for the govt. 1) When people have catastrophic illness or injuries, there will be a plan in place to catch those that would otherwise give up and land in Medicaid anyways. 2) People (like me) could continue to work and be productive tax payers, rather than giving up and accepting SSI disability/medicaid.
I have paid into the social security and medicaid insurance for nearly 30 years of my life. I have the right to collect due to paying thousands out of my income in premiums(taxes). But to access that insurance, I have to quit working and be a burden to society(remember I have paid for this through my taxes-I am collecting only what I have been paying for). How does that make sense to my fellow conservatives, but paying ADDITIONAL insurance premiums to a govt sponsored program, that would keep me working (and paying taxes) is a handout? I am against the govt takeover of healthcare. But doesn't what I've said make any sense to you?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3171915
Here's my healthcare plan:
For people that are able to work but have health issues that insurance companies refuse to cover or charge so much as to make it impossible to afford, the government would develop co-ops to assist them in medical coverage. Everyone in the co-op would have to pay, just like any insurance, and the only govt money would be tax incentives (like $0 federal tax on income derived from the treatment of people in the co-op)to hospitals and doctors who accept the co-op insurance.
This will have two benefits that will it a money-maker for the govt. 1) When people have catastrophic illness or injuries, there will be a plan in place to catch those that would otherwise give up and land in Medicaid anyways. 2) People (like me) could continue to work and be productive tax payers, rather than giving up and accepting SSI disability/medicaid.
I have paid into the social security and medicaid insurance for nearly 30 years of my life. I have the right to collect due to paying thousands out of my income in premiums(taxes). But to access that insurance, I have to quit working and be a burden to society(remember I have paid for this through my taxes-I am collecting only what I have been paying for). How does that make sense to my fellow conservatives, but paying ADDITIONAL insurance premiums to a govt sponsored program, that would keep me working (and paying taxes) is a handout? I am against the govt takeover of healthcare. But doesn't what I've said make any sense to you?
The whole pre existing thing is a simple fix. The liberals use that and other small issues to create one big problem they can use to create a socialist health system.
All they really need to do is change the regulations on insurance companies. People who make poor lifestyle choices (drinking, smoking, obese) should have to pay a reasonably higher premium, same deal with pre existing conditions. Let them add a premium to the co pay for treatments that are considered a pre existing condition. These problems can all be solved without a government takeover. The only part of the bill I like is the requirement that you buy insurance.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Reef, I think you are over simplifying this. I am not overweight, a heavy drinker or smoker and my injury is an on-the-job injury. My company's insurance has said they will cover me now, with double rates and a huge deductible. Making it so expensive that literally half, or just over half, of my after tax earnings would go to insurance premiums and deductibles. I am with you on the libs trying to use the uninsured as an excuse to take over the whole system. But, before I work myself to death to just pay for healthcare, I am going to cash in on my SSI/medicaid insurance. That is what no one on the conservative side will address. I have insurance that I can collect on at no further expense to me-SSI/Medicaid-which isn't a handout, I paid for it every time I paid my taxes. Is that better than the plan I gave? Sorry, but I really don't know where you're coming from, other than a disdain for those who have had a tough break in life-through no fault of their own. I guess the stereotype of conservatives fits some times. No offense intended, but it seems what is being said here by conservatives is "if you aren't good enough (or profitable enough) for the insurance companies, please go die somewhere other than here".
 

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3171924
All they really need to do is change the regulations on insurance companies. People who make poor lifestyle choices (drinking, smoking, obese) should have to pay a reasonably higher premium, same deal with pre existing conditions. Let them add a premium to the co pay for treatments that are considered a pre existing condition. These problems can all be solved without a government takeover. The only part of the bill I like is the requirement that you buy insurance.
So, how long until we can get Obama out and get you in?
Not to sure about the pre existing thing... I would have to see that one on paper.
I think we'd still have enough people signing up for higher premiums to keep their bad habits to keep the population in check.... we can't make people TOO healthy to extend the amount of time the average person collects social security.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3171924
People who make poor lifestyle choices (drinking, smoking, obese) should have to pay a reasonably higher premium, same deal with pre existing conditions. Let them add a premium to the co pay for treatments that are considered a pre existing condition.
The problem I have with this is those born with pre existing conditions through no action of their own. I have no problem with higher premiums for smokers, drinkers, drug abusers....and so on. But higher premiums for people born with say Multiple schlorosis, crack babies with their on going medical problems and such should not be penalized for the choices of their parents or nature....So we need a safety net for these people born or geneticall acquiring pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own.
Medicare/medicaid needs streamlined and opened up to those truly unable to afford anything. U.s. citizens as well.....should only be applicable.
I don't buy into the argument that illegals should be covered so they can be treated to prevent legal citizens from becoming sick or ill....if the legal citizens are covered they can get treatment for anything received from an illegal. Eventually this will force the illegals to go back home or become legal yet maintain a medical coverage for all citizens. I look at illegals and medical care, like I view 20 something year olds still being supported and living off mom and dad.eventually you have to say enough is enough.
To bring down the cost, open up state to state insurance selling. I find it ridiculous that I can buy a car and the insurance anywhere in the nation...but I can't buy medical insurance from a company in Rhode Island. I can order a TV from Japan if I want to, but can't buy Insurance from Texas. It is proven that free market keeps prices down on many things....But in this instance the government has not allowed a free market.
2 things in this country that we have no choice on......who supplies our natural gas and electricity and where we buy our insurance from....and these expenses are some of our most expensive because of it....My

[hr]
is cheaper than my health insurance if the company I worked part time for didn't pick up 80% of the cost. There is something wrong with that....I believe it is the limiting of competition. At the same degree I won't fault the insurance companies completely as their profit margin is very small compared to other markets.
But I think this will push the insurance companies to deal better with the hospitals on price negotiations...I would also (hate to say this) set up a standard (regardless of income level) 3% tax separate from FICAS and social security to strictly fund medicaid/care and the safety net program. Any extra collected each year that is not moved is moved to a security fund incase one year there is a shortage on the plan. Once a certain amount is saved....this half of this amount is automatically put towards our national debt and paying it off.
That is it...NO dipping in it EVER.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3171960
The problem I have with this is those born with pre existing conditions through no action of their own. I have no problem with higher premiums for smokers, drinkers, drug abusers....and so on. But higher premiums for people born with say Multiple schlorosis, crack babies with their on going medical problems and such should not be penalized for the choices of their parents or nature....So we need a safety net for these people born or geneticall acquiring pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own.
This is a path that we should not embark on. Once we start listing obvious genetic problems the less obvious ones, such as those that are diagnosed only by DNA analysis, will be next. That could such things as predisposition to cancer, heart disease, self destructive behavior, lack of resistance to cigarette carcinogens, antibiotic resistance, extreme height (very tall persons don't live as long), and on and on and on. Eventually, nobody would qualify for insurance.
 

cranberry

Active Member
Yaaaaa, I don't think I like the pre-existing idea. I have to go to the doctor on monday and I'm already thinking of stopping by work and picking up a little special cancer insurance before anything is written on paper by my doc.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3171974
This is a path that we should not embark on. Once we start listing obvious genetic problems the less obvious ones, such as those that are diagnosed only by DNA analysis, will be next. That could such things as predisposition to cancer, heart disease, self destructive behavior, lack of resistance to cigarette carcinogens, antibiotic resistance, extreme height (very tall persons don't live as long), and on and on and on. Eventually, nobody would qualify for insurance.
I am not talking on a DNA level, but if your family has a history of Diabetees...then you develop it later....1 year later you could be qualified as having a pre-existing condition, that is not of your own creation....Diabetes is listed as a pre-existing condition I believe in some cases...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3171945
Reef, I think you are over simplifying this. I am not overweight, a heavy drinker or smoker and my injury is an on-the-job injury. My company's insurance has said they will cover me now, with double rates and a huge deductible. Making it so expensive that literally half, or just over half, of my after tax earnings would go to insurance premiums and deductibles. I am with you on the libs trying to use the uninsured as an excuse to take over the whole system. But, before I work myself to death to just pay for healthcare, I am going to cash in on my SSI/medicaid insurance. That is what no one on the conservative side will address. I have insurance that I can collect on at no further expense to me-SSI/Medicaid-which isn't a handout, I paid for it every time I paid my taxes. Is that better than the plan I gave? Sorry, but I really don't know where you're coming from, other than a disdain for those who have had a tough break in life-through no fault of their own. I guess the stereotype of conservatives fits some times. No offense intended, but it seems what is being said here by conservatives is "if you aren't good enough (or profitable enough) for the insurance companies, please go die somewhere other than here".
How is it you have a work related injury and workers compensation insurance isn't covering it? Your whole deal sounds hokey, have you talked with a lawyer?
As far as preexisting conditions go I think you missed my point. I think people who drink or smoke or whatever should be able to have higher premiums charged to them because their actions are increasing the likelihood that they will need additional care. Preexisting conditions should have a copay premium when they need treatment for that condition. That way you are at least helping to pay for the treatment you are receiving due to the condition you had before you signed up for their coverage but not getting soaked with higher premiums every month when you might not ever need treatment for the preexisting condition again. I think that is fair and reasonable and a much better deal than paying a higher premium.
As far as not being able to relate or having disdain, I am on Social Security and Medicare due to a work place accident that left me 100% permanently and totally disabled. My disdain is reserved for the a-holes who think everything should be handed to them. I have no issues with someone getting help when they had a bad break.
If you think you can just quit your job and waltz on to medicare or medicaid and Social Security you have a very rude awakening. I was able to secure my social security without hiring a lawyer which places me in a fairly elite group, it's pretty common to have to make a couple of attempts to be accepted. My worker's comp attorney was shocked when I called and told him I got it.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3171960
The problem I have with this is those born with pre existing conditions through no action of their own. I have no problem with higher premiums for smokers, drinkers, drug abusers....and so on. But higher premiums for people born with say Multiple schlorosis, crack babies with their on going medical problems and such should not be penalized for the choices of their parents or nature....So we need a safety net for these people born or geneticall acquiring pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own.
.
So you think a car insurance company should repair the damage to your car from a wreck you had a week before you bought insurance from them?
As opposed to flat denying coverage or soaking everyone else I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect those with a preexisting condition to pay a little more. I am not talking twice the amount but say your insurance has a 20% copay add another 5% or so when a person seeks treatment for the preexisting condition. The whole idea of insurance is risk sharing. If you are going to force insurers to take on bad risks you got to allow them to recoup those costs somewhere. I honestly don't mind paying a little more so someone like the Mantis can get coverage but I think he should be paying at least a little more than me.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3172006
So you think a car insurance company should repair the damage to your car from a wreck you had a week before you bought insurance from them?
As opposed to flat denying coverage or soaking everyone else I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect those with a preexisting condition to pay a little more. I am not talking twice the amount but say your insurance has a 20% copay add another 5% or so when a person seeks treatment for the preexisting condition. The whole idea of insurance is risk sharing. If you are going to force insurers to take on bad risks you got to allow them to recoup those costs somewhere. I honestly don't mind paying a little more so someone like the Mantis can get coverage but I think he should be paying at least a little more than me.
I can agree with this...the pre-existing conditions I am talking about are those you are born with. Even if your car was in an accident..you get insurance, you have another accident, they cover the vehicle. The previous accident has nothing to do with the current accident, so it really isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Life isn't fair, I use this statement a lot, especially when dealing with my kids...lol...but I don't think you should be penalized financially because you were born with a defect or medical condition. I don't think you should be penalized because later down the line you acquired diabetes because it was genetic. Alot of times Social security picks up some of these tabs...but not all the time.....this is the conditions I am talking about.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
I missed a hearing that was held in Tuscon, 90 miles away. I thought it was on a Wednesday-it was Tuesday. It was the 1 year review, which even their doctors were agreeing to treatment-but I didn't show so my case was automatically dismissed. Thus the purgatory I live in now. I was already accepted for SSI and Medicaid in 2006. I didn't finish the process because I wanted to work and support myself. I am working for less than half of what I made before I injured my back, so I can support my family and look myself in the mirror. BTW, I refused to take the workers comp payments, I just had them paying for the medical bills.
 

ironeagle2006

Active Member
They DO PROVIDE heath INSURANCE. Trouble is Small Employeer and HIGH PREMIUMS. Those costs I listed were WHAT SHE WOULD PAY AFTER THE COMPANY PAYS THEIR SHARE BTW THEY PAY 80& of the cost. That give you an idea how expensive it is to get Health insurance. 90& of the CNA's and Housekeepers there and those are Union workers with FAMILIES are either on Medicaid or HAVE THEIR SPOUSES INSURANCE. Why they can not afford the Company plan. Even the Caddy plan does not cover well baby care or their SHOTS. Yet when my State Senator tried to get Tort Reform on the agenda just 6 years ago guess who BLOCKED HIM. State Senator Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA out of CHICAGO saying it would cause to many medical errors. Verous having doctors with 200K a year in Malpractice Insurance costs. My Mother a now retired RN had to carry Malpractice insurance and it cost her just as an RN 2K a Year.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3172096
I missed a hearing that was held in Tuscon, 90 miles away. I thought it was on a Wednesday-it was Tuesday. It was the 1 year review, which even their doctors were agreeing to treatment-but I didn't show so my case was automatically dismissed. Thus the purgatory I live in now. I was already accepted for SSI and Medicaid in 2006. I didn't finish the process because I wanted to work and support myself. I am working for less than half of what I made before I injured my back, so I can support my family and look myself in the mirror. BTW, I refused to take the workers comp payments, I just had them paying for the medical bills.
Why refuse the comp payments? Your whole case seem strange to me, no offense intended.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3172106
They DO PROVIDE heath INSURANCE. Trouble is Small Employeer and HIGH PREMIUMS. Those costs I listed were WHAT SHE WOULD PAY AFTER THE COMPANY PAYS THEIR SHARE BTW THEY PAY 80& of the cost. That give you an idea how expensive it is to get Health insurance. 90& of the CNA's and Housekeepers there and those are Union workers with FAMILIES are either on Medicaid or HAVE THEIR SPOUSES INSURANCE. Why they can not afford the Company plan. Even the Caddy plan does not cover well baby care or their SHOTS. Yet when my State Senator tried to get Tort Reform on the agenda just 6 years ago guess who BLOCKED HIM. State Senator Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA out of CHICAGO saying it would cause to many medical errors. Verous having doctors with 200K a year in Malpractice Insurance costs. My Mother a now retired RN had to carry Malpractice insurance and it cost her just as an RN 2K a Year.
Ain't Unions great

My wife went to PT for her back a couple years ago. Her PT used to be a surgeon that specialized in backs. He said after considering the cost of insurance and other overhead he make way better money being a PT and had a lot less stress.
 

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Here is one the Class One RR's they are Public Companies and also pay for all their own Locomotives cars and all other Capital Improvements. Plus get this do it all without ANY FEDERAL FUNDING. Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern Santa Fe both earn enough after taxes to pay for all improvements IN CASH. Put it to you this way Warren Buffet of Bershire Hathaway is BUYING the BNSF for 44 BILLION why because he wants it he calls it the best run RR out there.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3172295
Here is one the Class One RR's they are Public Companies and also pay for all their own Locomotives cars and all other Capital Improvements. Plus get this do it all without ANY FEDERAL FUNDING. Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern Santa Fe both earn enough after taxes to pay for all improvements IN CASH. Put it to you this way Warren Buffet of Bershire Hathaway is BUYING the BNSF for 44 BILLION why because he wants it he calls it the best run RR out there.
Not to rain on your parade but how did the RR's get their right of ways?

I think the better term would have been self sustaining because the government and businesses are dependent on each other. What Stdreb was trying to say, I think, is that bankrupt is bankrupt and the government shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who gets saved from their own mistakes.
 
Top