Sure you can have health insurance (not sure how you will pay for it).

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/140#post_3539561
Medicare rates have declined, specifically costs for Plan B since the implementation of ACA. More Fox News talking points.
Pssssst M E D I C A I D, Not M E D I C A R E.
But as long as you bring up Medicare yes, they did cut payments BUT they applied the savings to 0bama care costs like additional IRS agents, A multi Billion dollar website thats a wet kiss for hackers and health care navigators. So where's the cost savings?

And not only are Medicaid costs going to spike, so are the exchange policy premiums. Not only haven't as many people as they were depending on signed up a much lower percentage of those who have are the young healthys they were depending on. Not only will that drive up rates, You are going to see people drop insurance because it makes no sense to pay such high premiums with ridiculously high deductibles and out of pocket caps on the 70/30 copays on the "cheap" policies.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
I see you deflecting again when your numbers are skewed.  Try to intimidate by accusing me of being the Bionic person again?  Typical.
where are my numbers wrong? I have listed so many, I am sure it is an easy thing to prove them wrong. Intimidate? I suspect you would feel a kinship since you guys share the same exact views. Debate exactly the same and even have wives that work at hospitals.....................amongst other similarities.
 

reefraff

Active Member

darthtang aw

Active Member
And that ridiculous Republican alternative isn't "cost shifting instead of cost reduction"?
I didnt say I supported the republican proposal, did I? You said all they proposed was selling insurance across state lines. This aspect I do support as it should produce a cost reduction. If it doesn't no harm done. I showed the proposal to show they have a proposal outside of that.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/140#post_3539558
Excuse me. $3K makes such a HUGE difference in today's economy.
Working their way up the ladder? What, from fry cooker to running the cashier?


Go look at your Medicare account and see how much is in it. Who cares how much compound interest is being paid into the system? That doesn't go into your personal account. Medicare is one of the largest and most bloated federal programs we have. The main reason it's costs have exploded over the last couple of decades is because people are living longer. You have people on that program going on 15 years, spending more than $20K/year in healthcare costs. There's absolutely no way they have put in more than they're taking out. As far as Part B, like I said, half the elderly population rely on their only source of income, which is SS. The majority of them are living in nursing homes, and their entire check goes to pay for staying there. So there's no money to pay for Part B.


The Zimmerman crap has been beat to death. You'll never convince his supporters he did anything wrong. Bottom line, he stereotyped some Black kid walking down the street minding his own business, and because he was "packin'", he thought he could intimidate the kid and confront him when he should have stayed in his car and waited for the cops to show up if he really had evidence the kid was up to no good. If he wouldn't had a gun on him I guarantee you he would've never gotten out of the car. What no one knows, and will never know, is who threw the first punch, or what was said to cause Martin to stand his ground to protect himself from some stranger confronting him in the night. Let me ask you - If you were walking down your neighborhood sidewalk minding your own business, you're unarmed, and some guy walks up behind you saying "Hey, what are you doing?", what would you have done? When you faced the guy, and you saw he was caring a firearm, but he hadn't pulled it out yet, would you turn and run, hoping he didn't shoot you in the back, or would you stand your ground, and if the opportunity arose, nail the guy with a punch and hopefully put him down so you could disarm him?
A single parent with 3 kids working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would not owe any income tax, would get 3,000.00 back from the 1000.00 child credit and another 6,044.00 in earned income credit. So Suddenly 15K year turns into just over 24K. That over 11.50 an hour rather than sitting home on their butt letting someone else pay their way.
Oh. and that 44K or whatever you say doesn't go far for medicare part A. That is essentially a catastrophic insurance policy at best. Premiums for those kind of insurance plans were cheap.That 44K goes a long way.
 

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/140#post_3539534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer
http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/120#post_3539518
Aggie you've been getting beat like a rented mule lately. Dismantling your arguments is like the riding the village bicycle... everyone gets a turn.

Zimmerman wasnt acquitted because he had a better attorney, (same arguement as Simpson) Zimmerman was found to be innocent by a jury of his peers for two reasons:

1) Because he was innocent.
2) There was insufficient evidence to prove anything else.

Had nothing to do with his lawyer, both sides chose their own legal counsel.

Im glad he was acquitted, the man was innocent.
You're glad Zimmerman was innocent because he "culled the herd" of one more "thug". Same can't be said about that moron Dunn whose going to spend the rest of his life in jail for essentially doing the same thing Zimmerman did. Problem with his case? There were actual witnesses who LIVED, a video showing what he did. The ONLY reason Zimmerman got off because there was no conclusive evidence to show whether he was actually attacked first or not. So the moral of that story is, if you want to kill someone in cold blood, just make sure there's no one around or any cameras watching before you do it.
Must have been a sale, two thugs gone for the price of one. I wonder what OJ would think?
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539568
I didnt say I supported the republican proposal, did I? You said all they proposed was selling insurance across state lines. This aspect I do support as it should produce a cost reduction. If it doesn't no harm done. I showed the proposal to show they have a proposal outside of that.
The proposal was no better than ACA. ACA allows insurers to sell across state lines, considering every major insurance provider has the opportunity to jump on board with the program. You have these illusions of grandeur that if these major conglomerates like BCBS, Aetna, or United Healthcare could sell anywhere they want, that costs would come down. Health insurance isn't like car insurance. The providers have to base their costs on what charges the medical providers will submit for services. Paying for a $100K heart surgery is a lot different than having to payoff a totaled Kia Sonata. You think they're going to eat those costs?
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539569
A single parent with 3 kids working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would not owe any income tax, would get 3,000.00 back from the 1000.00 child credit and another 6,044.00 in earned income credit. So Suddenly 15K year turns into just over 24K. That over 11.50 an hour rather than sitting home on their butt letting someone else pay their way.
Oh. and that 44K or whatever you say doesn't go far for medicare part A. That is essentially a catastrophic insurance policy at best. Premiums for those kind of insurance plans were cheap.That 44K goes a long way.
They get no child tax credit. They do get the EIC. So, could you live on $21K a year as a single mother and three kids?


How does 44K go a long way if you have a hip replacement, stroke, or heart attack? What kind of injuries and diseases do you think are most common for individuals from age 65 to 80, coughs and colds?
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
They get no child tax credit.  They do get the EIC.  So, could you live on $21K a year as a single mother and three kids?
Yes they do get credit. Which is why one of our office girls can afford to support 3 children by her self and live in one of our 3 bedroom town houses. Last year I know she got nearly $9000 from the federal government. Not including child support on 2 of the kids and food stamps. If you add it all up she's probably bringing in nearly $40k a year and works an $11 an hour job.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
The proposal was no better than ACA.  ACA allows insurers to sell across state lines, considering every major insurance provider has the opportunity to jump on board with the program.  You have these illusions of grandeur that if these major conglomerates like BCBS, Aetna, or United Healthcare could sell anywhere they want, that costs would come down.  Health insurance isn't like car insurance.  The providers have to base their costs on what charges the medical providers will submit for services.  Paying for a $100K heart surgery is a lot different than having to payoff a totaled Kia Sonata.  You think they're going to eat those costs?
Like I said...what would it hurt to allow it? You rail against saying it won't help...Yet can't give any reason not to, that would be detrimental to the population. Congress passes pointless legislation regularly.
ACA does not allow insurers to sell across state lines. Only where they are licensed to operate out of. Hence why Aetna is on many State Exchanges, but not all. They are not in New Mexico...because they have not been licensed to sell and operate in New Mexico.
 

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer
http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539571
Must have been a sale, two thugs gone for the price of one. I wonder what OJ would think?
Where is OJ sitting right now? I'd take a bet that you'll eventually see Zimmerman locked up for a good while. Old habits are hard to break.
I thought OJ was found not guilty for the Nichole Simpson case?...break... Hey Aggie, do you think the world is overpopulated?
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539588
Like I said...what would it hurt to allow it? You rail against saying it won't help...Yet can't give any reason not to, that would be detrimental to the population. Congress passes pointless legislation regularly.
ACA does not allow insurers to sell across state lines. Only where they are licensed to operate out of. Hence why Aetna is on many State Exchanges, but not all. They are not in New Mexico...because they have not been licensed to sell and operate in New Mexico.
You are misdirecting where you think the costs are being generated. It doesn't matter who the insurance provider is, or where they can sell their product. Every insurance rate is based on several factors - the number of individuals being covered, the age of each individual, their overall health status (pretty much every health insurance provider charges smokers more money), and most importantly, what they have to pay medical providers for services rendered. ACA is no different than what large companies provide for their employees. My wife's hospital subsidizes the cost for their employees and family members. ACA essentially does the same for any US citizen that doesn't have the luxury or opportunity to work for large company that offers benefits. ACA subsidized costs get paid by American taxpayer's. The subsidized costs that corporations pay out for their employees are recouped by charging more for their services or products. You honestly think Fortune 500 companies are eating those costs just to keep their employees happy?

If you want to reduce premium costs, whether it's for ACA or an employee working for a company that provides health insurance, you have to regulate what medical providers charge for their services and what pharmaceuticals charge for their drugs. Unfortunately, ACA didn't do this because the health provider lobbyists in Washington are WAY to powerful to let that happen. You have thousands of hospital and medical treatment centers, and millions of healthcare providers like doctors, surgeons, nurses and all the other medical staff across this country. There are no standardized rates that any of these individuals or organizations are forced to charge for the services. My Internal Medicine doctor charges $60 for any office visit. Because of my insurance, I only pay a $10 co-pay to see him. When I get my report from BCBS, it shows he submitted a request for a $60 payment, BCBS countered with a negotiated price of $35. The longest time I've ever spent with the guy during an office visit is 20 minutes. That's three patients in an hour, which comes to $105/hr. for one hour's work. Granted, him and his partners have the overhead of paying for office space, staff, office equipment, medical equipment, etc., but there's 10 doctor's that work in his group. They also have their own lab in their office so patients don't have to go elsewhere to get blood work or urinalysis. I get labs every time I go in to check my cholesterol and other chemical balances. I pay 15% of the services provided. The BCBS bill shows the lab charged them $425 for the blood work and urine samples, they negotiated the service to $280, and I pay whatever 15% of that $280 for my part. How long does it take a tech to do the various tests on my blood to get the results my doctor is looking for? Is it worth $280? Multiply that number by a few hundred per day. Also remember my doctor does see Medicare patients, so I can just imagine what kind of charges they're sending to them, and what they are getting paid by Medicare. I guarantee you it's more than $280.

My kids and wife go to their own doctors. I see the BCBS bills when they go to the doctor, and the charges for the services they get are completely different. I believe their doctor's office visit is $80, and BCBS negotiates it to $50. The services they receive are no different than mine (with the exception of what they look at "down there".
), so why a $15 difference in an office visit?

Then there's the specialists. I've been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and other neurological disorders due to problem with my back. When I first started having symptoms, I went to go see a neurologist to get a diagnosis on the problem. His standard office visit rate is $250. BCBS negotiates a rate of $175, and I still pay the $10 co-pay. I spent maybe 30 minutes with the guy, and he orders X-Ray's, MRI's, and what I call getting zapped with a cattle prod to see where the issues may lie. So he gets $175 for 30 minutes of work. The two MRI's I get cost $2800. After it was all said and done, I paid $425 for the service. My insurance company picked up the rest.

My wife is a surgeon. Do you really want me to go through what her hospital charges, and what she gets paid for her services?

So the moral of this story is if you really want to curb what you pay for your health insurance, don't point your anger at what some private provider charges you, or why ACA is gigging the taxpayers to help subsidize those same ridiculous rates they and large corporations are being charged by the same insurance providers. Go after the real villain in this picture - the Providers who are making a killing in the long run, and essentially charge whatever they feel or the market will bare.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539591
I thought OJ was found not guilty for the Nichole Simpson case?...break... Hey Aggie, do you think the world is overpopulated?
Go ask OJ what his bank account is like. Nichole's and that other guy's family won their civil suit against OJ for the same crime. They didn't find them guilty in a criminal court, but apparently the jury in the civil suit didn't buy his story. Hilarious OJ later comes out with a book "How I Would've Done It".

Is the world overpopulated? Depends on which part of the world you live in. China would agree with that statement, ergo why they've limited families to only one child per household. I don't think anyone living in Australia would say it's overpopulated. They have millions of untouched acres people could live in if they chose to do so. Because of technological and medical advances, people are living longer. Back in the 1800's here in the US, what was the average life expectancy, 55? Now it's what, 75 or so? My father died at 76 by a heart attack, mother recently passed at 87, her brother died at 89, one sister at 92, another at 86. My father's side, the average age his 7 brother's and sister's died at (one is still kickin' at 91), was 83. They grew up in the Depression Years where smoking and drinking was the norm, and manual labor was the natural form of employment. They were all contributors to society until their health didn't allow them to be. Your mentality appears to be we set limits on how long these people should remain breathing based on how they contribute to society, and until they're too weak to do so. You just have to remember that some day that will be you. Oh wait, you don't fear death so that's irrelevant to the conversation. Be careful what you wish for.
 

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer
http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539591
I thought OJ was found not guilty for the Nichole Simpson case?...break... Hey Aggie, do you think the world is overpopulated?
Go ask OJ what his bank account is like. Nichole's and that other guy's family won their civil suit against OJ for the same crime. They didn't find them guilty in a criminal court, but apparently the jury in the civil suit didn't buy his story. Hilarious OJ later comes out with a book "How I Would've Done It".

Is the world overpopulated? Depends on which part of the world you live in. China would agree with that statement, ergo why they've limited families to only one child per household. I don't think anyone living in Australia would say it's overpopulated. They have millions of untouched acres people could live in if they chose to do so. Because of technological and medical advances, people are living longer. Back in the 1800's here in the US, what was the average life expectancy, 55? Now it's what, 75 or so? My father died at 76 by a heart attack, mother recently passed at 87, her brother died at 89, one sister at 92, another at 86. My father's side, the average age his 7 brother's and sister's died at (one is still kickin' at 91), was 83. They grew up in the Depression Years where smoking and drinking was the norm, and manual labor was the natural form of employment. They were all contributors to society until their health didn't allow them to be. Your mentality appears to be we set limits on how long these people should remain breathing based on how they contribute to society, and until they're too weak to do so. You just have to remember that some day that will be you. Oh wait, you don't fear death so that's irrelevant to the conversation. Be careful what you wish for.
The double jeopardy clause, so if OJ were to admit it now he could not be tried for it again? Thats the way I understand it?

I used to live in Sydney and Perth in the 90s for a few years, visited Hobart Tasmania once, you must be referring to the outback right? Antarctica is also not very populated but the polar bears seem to do OK
. Should we be encroaching into these areas? and if so when do we stop consuming and expanding ?

My family grew up as farmers before govt subsidies , this is one reason why I believe in personal independence so much. Some of our friends came from the old USSR and left after the communist govt took over their family shop and home, kicked them out on the street and left them destitute. Once they got to the US they started over and did well because they were esssentially free of govt control. Before my great Grandmother passed away, she was deeply troubled because she saw the same thing unfolding here with the expansion of govt that she witnessed in the old country. It has measurably increased in gradual increments but many that have lived here their entire lives dont notice this because they have nothing to compair it too. Most kids have never heard of an 8 track cassette either.

It would be nice not to have to wait in line everywhere you go and fewer traffic lights, less pollution, crime, trash, graffiti and we wouldn't have to continually expand everywhere encroaching into wilderness, less people begging on each corner because the cost of goods would be within reach due to less competition for resources as it was 30 yrs ago in the US.

Yeah, Im serious about the death thing. I dont fear it, it's a part of life for me. I mean, no one escapes it. Im not sure whats on the other side but I know what overpopulation has done to the earth and what kind of society it has created. It became easier for me to accept once I realized life on earth consists of pain and suffering with very small periods of joy (not enough to make a difference for me). Dying isnt hard , it's living thats hard (Josey Wales).
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
You are misdirecting where you think the costs are being generated.  It doesn't matter who the insurance provider is, or where they can sell their product.  Every insurance rate is based on several factors - the number of individuals being covered, the age of each individual, their overall health status (pretty much every health insurance provider charges smokers more money), and most importantly, what they have to pay medical providers for services rendered.  ACA is no different than what large companies provide for their employees.  My wife's hospital subsidizes the cost for their employees and family members. ACA essentially does the same for any US citizen that doesn't have the luxury or opportunity to work for  large company that offers benefits.  ACA subsidized costs get paid by American taxpayer's. The subsidized costs that corporations pay out for their employees are recouped by charging more for their services or products.  You honestly think Fortune 500 companies are eating those costs just to keep their employees happy?
If you want to reduce premium costs, whether it's for ACA or an employee working for a company that provides health insurance, you have to regulate what medical providers charge for their services and what pharmaceuticals charge for their drugs.  Unfortunately, ACA didn't do this because the health provider lobbyists in Washington are WAY to powerful to let that happen.  You have thousands of hospital and medical treatment centers, and millions of healthcare providers like doctors, surgeons, nurses and all the other medical staff across this country.  There are no standardized rates that any of these individuals or organizations are forced to charge for the services.  My Internal Medicine doctor charges $60 for any office visit.  Because of my insurance, I only pay a $10 co-pay to see him.  When I get my report from BCBS, it shows he submitted a request for a $60 payment, BCBS countered with a negotiated price of $35.  The longest time I've ever spent with the guy during an office visit is 20 minutes.  That's three patients in an hour, which comes to $105/hr. for one hour's work.  Granted, him and his partners have the overhead of paying for office space, staff, office equipment, medical equipment, etc., but there's 10 doctor's that work in his group.  They also have their own lab in their office so patients don't have to go elsewhere to get blood work or urinalysis.  I get labs every time I go in to check my cholesterol and other chemical balances.  I pay 15% of the services provided.  The BCBS bill shows the lab charged them $425 for the blood work and urine samples, they negotiated the service to $280, and I pay whatever 15% of that $280 for my part.  How long does it take a tech to do the various tests on my blood to get the results my doctor is looking for?  Is it worth $280?  Multiply that number by a few hundred per day.  Also remember my doctor does see Medicare patients, so I can just imagine what kind of charges they're sending to them, and what they are getting paid by Medicare.  I guarantee you it's more than $280.
My kids and wife go to their own doctors.  I see the BCBS bills when they go to the doctor, and the charges for the services they get are completely different.  I believe their doctor's office visit is $80, and BCBS negotiates it to $50.  The services they receive are no different than mine (with the exception of what they look at "down there". :laughing:  ), so why a $15 difference in an office visit?
Then there's the specialists.  I've been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and other neurological disorders due to problem with my back.  When I first started having symptoms, I went to go see a neurologist to get a diagnosis on the problem.  His standard office visit rate is $250.  BCBS negotiates a rate of $175, and I still pay the $10 co-pay.  I spent maybe 30 minutes with the guy, and he orders X-Ray's, MRI's, and what I call getting zapped with a cattle prod to see where the issues may lie.  So he gets $175 for 30 minutes of work.  The two MRI's I get cost $2800.  After it was all said and done, I paid $425 for the service.  My insurance company picked up the rest.
My wife is a surgeon.  Do you really want me to go through what her hospital charges, and what she gets paid for her services?
So the moral of this story is if you really want to curb what you pay for your health insurance, don't point your anger at what some private provider charges you, or why ACA is gigging the taxpayers to help subsidize those same ridiculous rates they and large corporations are being charged by the same insurance providers.  Go after the real villain in this picture -  the Providers who are making a killing in the long run, and essentially charge whatever they feel or the market will bare.
My wife is a surgeon.  Do you really want me to go through what her hospital charges, and what she gets paid for her services?
So the moral of this story is if you really want to curb what you pay for your health insurance, don't point your anger at what some private provider charges you, or why ACA is gigging the taxpayers to help subsidize those same ridiculous rates they and large corporations are being charged by the same insurance providers.  Go after the real villain in this picture -  the Providers who are making a killing in the long run, and essentially charge whatever they feel or the market will bare.
Which has been my point about the bill from the start. It does nothing to curb costs. It just shifts cost. 2500 pages to shift the cost.
As I have been saying all along. The across state lines would encourage competition for pricing amongst the insurance companies. Force them to negotiate more about the cost of medical care. How much it would reduce the cost is unknown. might be insignificant. However, as I stated, You have yet to give a valid reason why allowing this would be bad. Aside from it being a Republican proposal.
There are three main areas that drive up medical costs.
The first is administration cost. 25% of the cost comes from administration. We have the highest administration costs in the world. The next closest to us is only 15%, the average is 7%. Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. Does that seem a bit out of proportion? 1.5 billing clerks for every hospital bed. Hell compare that to nurses to hospital beds and it doesn't come even close.
The second is Prescriptions. Drug companies sell individually to hospitals. Our prescriptions are usually 75% higher for name brand drugs than other countries. Why? Because the government of those countries is the one negotiating price and making the purchases in lump sum amounts. Then the government sets the price for the prescriptions to the consumer. Similar to how Medicaid and medicare handle their payments.
The third thing is Americans receive more medical care than any other country. We go to the hospital for everything. Even something as minor as a cold. This ties up administrative costs, handed out prescriptions and doctor offices. And the cost various so much from office to office and hospital to hospital. Insurance companies should give a person an allowed amount depending on the procedure. For example. A person needs a knee replacement and there are a couple doctors that will do it for 8,000 dollars in the area. Everyone else charges 12-20,000. The insurance company should say ok, we will pay 8,000...anything over that is now your cost. Instead of deductibles and percentages paid, move everything to standardize copayments based off the market low-to average cost of procedures. If insurance companies knew the average cost that might be dished out for procedures ahead of time, this might reduce the insurance cost as they wont be footing an entire bill after a deductible and people getting 20,000 dollar knee replacements when 8,000 will do the same thing. It will put the decision in the hand of the consumer. If they want a 20,000 dollar knee replacement, their portion would be 12 grand.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539639
The double jeopardy clause, so if OJ were to admit it now he could not be tried for it again? Thats the way I understand it?

I used to live in Sydney and Perth in the 90s for a few years, visited Hobart Tasmania once, you must be referring to the outback right? Antarctica is also not very populated but the polar bears seem to do OK
. Should we be encroaching into these areas? and if so when do we stop consuming and expanding ?

My family grew up as farmers before govt subsidies , this is one reason why I believe in personal independence so much. Some of our friends came from the old USSR and left after the communist govt took over their family shop and home, kicked them out on the street and left them destitute. Once they got to the US they started over and did well because they were esssentially free of govt control. Before my great Grandmother passed away, she was deeply troubled because she saw the same thing unfolding here with the expansion of govt that she witnessed in the old country. It has measurably increased in gradual increments but many that have lived here their entire lives dont notice this because they have nothing to compair it too. Most kids have never heard of an 8 track cassette either.

It would be nice not to have to wait in line everywhere you go and fewer traffic lights, less pollution, crime, trash, graffiti and we wouldn't have to continually expand everywhere encroaching into wilderness, less people begging on each corner because the cost of goods would be within reach due to less competition for resources as it was 30 yrs ago in the US.

Yeah, Im serious about the death thing. I dont fear it, it's a part of life for me. I mean, no one escapes it. Im not sure whats on the other side but I know what overpopulation has done to the earth and what kind of society it has created. It became easier for me to accept once I realized life on earth consists of pain and suffering with very small periods of joy (not enough to make a difference for me). Dying isnt hard , it's living thats hard (Josey Wales).
If your ancestors had the same mentality as you, you wouldn't be here. Your great Grandmother can't compare her childhood and younger years to how this country exists today. When she was growing up, she probably didn't have inside plumbing, and her only form of entertainment was making comforters by hand while sitting near to the tube radio listening to the Adventures of Howdy Doody. Her friends and relatives didn't live past 55 because someone could get something as simple as a common cold, contract pneumonia, and they were dead because penicillin or antibiotics weren't invented yet. Stepping on a rusty nail killed who knows how many. Then there was the Typhoid outbreak, Polio, and the dreaded Small Pox. Government has had to expand to keep up with the technological and other advances that have occurred to this country over the last 200 years. That's how progress works. If you want to go back to those days, knock yourself out. The Australian Outback is waiting for you.
 

bang guy

Moderator
I admit my opinion on this is biased because if it were "survival of the fittest" I would have died when I was 9 when my appendix burst.

I understand the need for ditch diggers and how strong and fit they are and how much they benefit society but I don't see us all as being better off if they ruled.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/160#post_3539653
Which has been my point about the bill from the start. It does nothing to curb costs. It just shifts cost. 2500 pages to shift the cost.
As I have been saying all along. The across state lines would encourage competition for pricing amongst the insurance companies. Force them to negotiate more about the cost of medical care. How much it would reduce the cost is unknown. might be insignificant. However, as I stated, You have yet to give a valid reason why allowing this would be bad. Aside from it being a Republican proposal.
There are three main areas that drive up medical costs.
The first is administration cost. 25% of the cost comes from administration. We have the highest administration costs in the world. The next closest to us is only 15%, the average is 7%. Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. Does that seem a bit out of proportion? 1.5 billing clerks for every hospital bed. Hell compare that to nurses to hospital beds and it doesn't come even close.
The second is Prescriptions. Drug companies sell individually to hospitals. Our prescriptions are usually 75% higher for name brand drugs than other countries. Why? Because the government of those countries is the one negotiating price and making the purchases in lump sum amounts. Then the government sets the price for the prescriptions to the consumer. Similar to how Medicaid and medicare handle their payments.
The third thing is Americans receive more medical care than any other country. We go to the hospital for everything. Even something as minor as a cold. This ties up administrative costs, handed out prescriptions and doctor offices. And the cost various so much from office to office and hospital to hospital. Insurance companies should give a person an allowed amount depending on the procedure. For example. A person needs a knee replacement and there are a couple doctors that will do it for 8,000 dollars in the area. Everyone else charges 12-20,000. The insurance company should say ok, we will pay 8,000...anything over that is now your cost. Instead of deductibles and percentages paid, move everything to standardize copayments based off the market low-to average cost of procedures. If insurance companies knew the average cost that might be dished out for procedures ahead of time, this might reduce the insurance cost as they wont be footing an entire bill after a deductible and people getting 20,000 dollar knee replacements when 8,000 will do the same thing. It will put the decision in the hand of the consumer. If they want a 20,000 dollar knee replacement, their portion would be 12 grand.
You didn't listen. Of course it doesn't curb medical costs. The lobbyists for that group would never allow it. There hasn't been an administration since the inception of healthcare that's ever attempted to curb costs. The sole intent of ACA is to provide anyone who wants to obtain some form of affordable insurance the capability to do so. Yes, it's just another Band-Aid to the problem, but until someone in Congress has the balls to put their foot down and say "We're mad a Hell, and we're not taking it anymore" and stand up to the medical industry in regards to costs, then you just remain status quo and do what you can to insure the average American doesn't go bankrupt getting simple medical treatments.

Like I said, you can't compare health insurance to any other type of insurance you maintain, with exception to homeowners insurance. Do a study of homeowner insurance rates along the Gulf Coast where hurricanes are the norm, or Hurricane Alley in the Midwest. Insurance premiums for homes in those areas don't have a wide swing if you base it on comparable home values. Just like health insurance, those providers aren't going to take a risk of getting burned when a hurricane wipes out an entire city.

Wait a minute, first you tell me that drug companies are justified in charging the costs they do for certain medications because of the research and patents they have on those drugs. Now it's the government setting those prices?

People go to the hospital for the common cold because they can't afford to go to a regular doctor to get the same services they can get for free. Setting allowed limits for a procedure is a good idea, but the flaw with your logic is continuing to allow the doctors the ability to set their own rates for similar services rendered. So your knee goes out, and you need a replacement. You're willing to go to Cut-Rate Dr. Joe Bob that hasn't had the best track record when it comes to getting people back on their feet after his knee surgeries because he's the only one you can afford, or do you take a second mortgage out on your house so you can go to one of the leading knee surgeons to insure you'll never have another problem with that knee. Better yet, you willing to put your life on the line when needing heart surgery simply because you can't afford the best heart surgeon available?

Insurance companies do know the costs for certain procedures prior to the patient having those procedures. Look at your health insurance policy some time. It states that when it comes to major surgeries or certain medical procedures, you have to contact your provider prior to the services being rendered. I guarantee you that you couldn't get a heart transplant performed without prior consent from your insurance provider, unless you're willing to accept the financial responsibility for any services the insurance company deem are not standard coverage's.
 
Top