Health Insurance Discussion

[justbroke]

If you break that, a woman has to have her tubes tied and a man has to have a vasectomy.

My mom worked for 30 years as a Social Caseworker. I'm proud that she retired and had her MSW and was recognized by many Judges for her work on her cases, despite being overloaded, underpaid, and unappreciated.

They did have some requirements, although they couldn't outright have them "neutered". Some included that if they had additional children, that the State would not increase their benefits. Long ago, many learned that the more children you had, the more money you got. It took probably 10 years for some reform to come through where the programs my mom oversaw were able to cutoff certain people who they could prove were abusing the system.

I don't know where or how you could draw the line. How far does it go? If we continue the logic of neutering people, we may as well have death panels. Just my opinion, as someone in tune with the actual realities of the social programs.

[lrprn]

JRScott, I noticed that you didn't include a response to my question, "Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less."

There's no way your proposed "solutions" will work without this.

How do you propose to tell whether a person receiving tax-supported services is able to provide community services or not? How often are you going to do the screenings? Who is going to do them? Most importantly, who is going to pay for them?

Please explain to me how your solutions can be implemented without adding a huge private or government bureaucracy to individually touch each receipient to do so.

We've discovered a number of times in this country that it's not possible to successfully legislate how people can feel and think (a good example - prohibition). A better sense of moral responsibility won't be the result of your ideas - that is done by parents and extended families and friends. However, it does open up yet another enormous potential area for fraud by those who could work but will instead try to "prove" they can't work but still qualify for benefits. What a expensive and wasteful boondoggle this would turn out to be. Worse, it still won't resolve the original issue that is the topic of this thread - healthcare reform.

(And for those who may be wondering what a 'boondoggle' is, it means "do useless, wasteful, or trivial work." From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

[ready2puke]

I am sooooo screwed.. My Pacific Care HMO just went up again. I am self employed and was paying $718. a month.. Now it went up 15% .. Holey Cow..now I'm paying $830 a month. I can't even afford my rent how in the world am I going to pay this? I'm sick to my stomach and this health care system is killing me...not sure what to do .. I'll be 60 in November and I'm sure I'll be in another age bracket and it'll go up again. I wish I was 65 so I can get Medicare.. Whats a person to do that can't afford the premiums go to a clinic.??? Drop the insureance..if I do that I will not be able to get any coverage. I have dics problems and a tube in my ear...what a mess....get me outta here..
R2P

[JRScott]

JRScott, I noticed that you didn't include a response to my question, "Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less."

There's no way your proposed "solutions" will work without this.

How do you propose to tell whether a person receiving tax-supported services is able to provide community services or not? How often are you going to do the screenings? Who is going to do them? Most importantly, who is going to pay for them?

Please explain to me how your solutions can be implemented without adding a huge private or government bureaucracy to individually touch each receipient to do so.

We've discovered a number of times in this country that it's not possible to successfully legislate how people can feel and think (a good example - prohibition). A better sense of moral responsibility won't be the result of your ideas - that is done by parents and extended families and friends. However, it does open up yet another enormous potential area for fraud by those who could work but will instead try to "prove" they can't work but still qualify for benefits. What a expensive and wasteful boondoggle this would turn out to be. Worse, it still won't resolve the original issue that is the topic of this thread - healthcare reform.

(And for those who may be wondering what a 'boondoggle' is, it means "do useless, wasteful, or trivial work." From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I did answer your question, basically what's already used to determine eligibility for these programs is sufficient to know what you can do. It would not require much more oversight other than a few more magistrates per district to assign out and check up on community service work.

In truth I don't believe we should be doing any of it, it's what's bankrupting the country in morals, ethics, and in money. Primarily almost everyone of these programs are unconstitutional as the constitution was written by the Founding Fathers. We through them have weakened communities, weakened families and caused great harm to our social environment.

But if we are going to do it, we need to stop the free rides. We need to move towards greater personal responsibility. There is nothing wrong with requiring 8 hours, 16 hours or so of community service a week in exchange for assistance rendered, plus any work assigned here lowers the cost of having to hire others to do it. You ever read the poem Invictus? Some truth in that, we are the masters of our souls, we are the masters of our destinies. It is through the choices we make that we determine our future. However the government is wanting to take that away from you, me and everyone. Every mandate, every additional program removes some of your freedom. That's why I don't think National Health Care is a good idea. Without tort reform of the nature that President Obama said he wouldn't support on the news yesterday we can't really have Health Care Reform that we can afford. To say your for tort reform but then say your against court awarded limits is not tort reform in my opinion. It isn't about helping you or me or anyone, it's about them wanting more control over your life. Once they control your health care, they can then tell you what you can and can't eat. That will then further reduce our food supplies, leading to more hunger and higher food prices. This isn't about helping people, it is about wanting to control your life.

Think about it. Your local charity does far more good in your area than the government does, with less money and less personnel with corruption and waste levels well below half of the government's rate. Yet the government continues to run overly large bureaucracies not for the greater good but to have greater control. If the poor and the elderly ever awake to what the government has done to them these past 20 years, there will be a revolution such that we've not seen in centuries I fear.

[TooMuchCredit]

Without tort reform of the nature that President Obama said he wouldn't support on the news yesterday we can't really have Health Care Reform that we can afford. To say your for tort reform but then say your against court awarded limits is not tort reform in my opinion.

I think it's 31 states have cap on malpractice awards. Texas implemented a cap of 250,000. It was supposed to lead to lower premiums. It hasn't. While doctors did not have to pay out more in insurance and lawsuits, it didn't reduce what they charged patients. And premiums still rose.

Massachussetts requires everyone to have insurance, like what is proposed, without requiring preexisting conditions to be covered or removing coverage caps and reducing/eliminating out of pocket expenses. Premiums went up not down.

I'm fine giving the proposal without a public option say 4 years, but if it doesn't deliver any significant savings, which I am doubting it will, the public option kicks in.

[justbroke]

I think it's 31 states have cap on malpractice awards. Texas implemented a cap of 250,000.

That cap is only on pain and suffering and doesn't cover the more compensatory awards... like punitive damages. It just didn't go far enough. All it changed, really, was the premiums Doctors paid, but hasn't limited the liability for insurance companies on the actual and compensatory damages awards. Doctors are still spending $100K or more to defend themselves, even with the "pain and suffering" cap. I don't think Texas fixed anything.

Most States have these non-economic limits anyhow. Many of them are around $400K, with some declaring severe injury at $1M. It still hasn't helped the cost of malpractice insurance, or the litigation that is spawned. The litigation costs on one side alone can exceed $100K. There are no limits on legal fees. Imagine winning $250K in a case, and the lawyers walk away with $300K in fees? I think the money just got shifted.

[LuciluS]

I am sooooo screwed.. My Pacific Care HMO just went up again. I am self employed and was paying $718. a month.. Now it went up 15% .. Holey Cow..now I'm paying $830 a month. I can't even afford my rent how in the world am I going to pay this? I'm sick to my stomach and this health care system is killing me...not sure what to do .. I'll be 60 in November and I'm sure I'll be in another age bracket and it'll go up again. I wish I was 65 so I can get Medicare.. Whats a person to do that can't afford the premiums go to a clinic.??? Drop the insureance..if I do that I will not be able to get any coverage. I have dics problems and a tube in my ear...what a mess....get me outta here..
R2P

I was in a car accident which deemed me disabled at age 50. I am on Medicare and it's the pits. I have the ONLY medicare supplemental policy in AR the US Medicare allows ARBCBS (need I say more!). I was told by a good insurance agent I better pay for the medicare & supplemental Now at age 50 because If I didn't when I turned 65, retirement age, I could be turned down for health insurance because of the severity of my disability.

I haven't had a decent Primary Care Doctor in over 3 years now. Only certain doctors will take Medicare Patients. The federal government only allows them to have a certain % of medicare patients. As my twin sis prepares for her double mascectomy on 9/25,her employer is part State/part Federal & it will cost her zero in money, but the pain OMG I can only imagine. Now me, Medicare pays for my mammograms, ultrasounds (about 4 a year), but when it comes time for the needle or surgical biopsies, Medicare will not pay for all of it. It perplexes me to think those who NEED (like me, &don't abuse the system) medicare find out they have a catastrophic illness & Medicare paid to tell them such BUT will not pay the full amount of the surgery.

I was called the other night as an AARP member (yet at age 55) to join in on a TownHall Meeting with Blanche Lincoln about health care. I stayed on the line about 10 minutes, just long enough to hear Ms. Lincoln dance all the way around 2 older gentlemens' questions & also to find out there were 10,751 of us on this conference call, I knew my question would never be answered, so I hung up.

I just want you to know that Medicare is NOT working NOW so how is making sure those who are not insured chose to be that way? I've read studies on the homeless. The % is high of those who chose that life rather than those who don't.

There is definitely something wrong with our Society, but I don't believe making sure everyone receives health insurance is the answer.

[hereforinfo]

JRScott, I noticed that you didn't include a response to my question, "Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less."

There's no way your proposed "solutions" will work without this.

How do you propose to tell whether a person receiving tax-supported services is able to provide community services or not? How often are you going to do the screenings? Who is going to do them? Most importantly, who is going to pay for them?

It's simple. You just assume anyone who is on welfare is able to provide community service unless they prove otherwise. If they aren't physically able, they would need to provide proof and obtain a waiver. As for the question of who will watch their children? One of the public service jobs could be to work in a public daycare that provides childcare for other welfare recipients while they are putting in their hours. Other jobs could be picking up trash, cleaning up the city, fixing up run down homes or blighted buildings in low income neighborhoods, cutting the grass on public properties, working in the welfare office helping to administer the program, the list goes on and on. There are so many projects and things that need to be done to make our cities and towns better, but not enough money to pay people to do them. Yet we are paying people to do nothing. Perhaps if many of the jobs were hard work and unappealing, it would provide incentive for the recipient to seek better employment elsewhere.

[JRScott]

justbroke and hereforinfo did good jobs of explaining points folks were arguing about ;)

[nc73]

I'm currently in the UK and I don't see why the US can't implement what the UK has. Job or not you are covered. If you work you pay. I've experienced the US health system and it sucks and it's expensive. It isn't free healthcare here, money comes from what is called national insurance, which gets deducted from your paycheck. Trust me it is a lot cheaper to pay national insurance than it is to buy your own or through your employer. I haven't had to pay for any prescriptions, or anything out of pocket. When I was in the states I was paying a hundred or more a month on top of my insurance through my employer. It CAN be done but people are just selfish and they don't want higher taxes, etc.

[JRScott]

I'm currently in the UK and I don't see why the US can't implement what the UK has. Job or not you are covered. If you work you pay. I've experienced the US health system and it sucks and it's expensive. It isn't free healthcare here, money comes from what is called national insurance, which gets deducted from your paycheck. Trust me it is a lot cheaper to pay national insurance than it is to buy your own or through your employer. I haven't had to pay for any prescriptions, or anything out of pocket. When I was in the states I was paying a hundred or more a month on top of my insurance through my employer. It CAN be done but people are just selfish and they don't want higher taxes, etc.

We already pay higher taxes than we did under King George III.

It isn't selfishness, it is the fact that people must be responsible for their own circumstance. The farther removed the power is from the individual, the more a slave he becomes.

[momisery]

We are already slaves to credit card companies, insurance have a job or have none, taxes, .... there is no real freedoms anymore. The problems today are created by wages droppping and people using credit like it is cash. The upper income earners and business owners/landlords/builders... all got use to charging more and more. We pay for cars now in 5-7 years not 3, homes in 30*40 years not 15 and both husband and wife are working now. I don't even have as much as my father did and he was working ina factory raising 7 kids inthe the fifties. He managed to save up enough to buy a farm with 7 kids working in a FACTORY. The facts are that wages have dropped and prices have climbed along with credit. People at the top simply thought we could all afford this for ever. So, if they WANT it all.. fine... but then they can pay for my healthcare because I can't afford to pay for it.

[momisery]

Oh, here is something new in Sept 2009 Businessweek. In 2003 In the State of TX they made changes to mal practice suits. This dropped the cost of mal practice insurance to doctors by 30% and the number of suit dropped by 50%. However, Tx healthcare costs are rising faster than any other state. So, for those who think that the lousy 2-3% problem that mal practice costs cause will fix healthcare, think again. Tx proves that greed never stops, never goes away, and in fact increase when people think they are not going to be held responsible for stupidty, and they can keep all the money too... geeh.. thanks TX, as usual you are the shining star that we all want to follow.. NOT!

[nc73]

Looks like the public option amendment didn't make it.

[justbroke]

Looks like the public option amendment didn't make it.

I never thought it would. When the president wouldn't even consider putting single-payer on the table, the defeat of the public option was inevitable, in my opinion. I don't think it would have been competitive.