US Health Reform

Where CNN gets their information
James
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:12 pm

Re: US Health Reform

Postby James on Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:20 am

My concern is that the ban on existing conditions will bankrupt the insurance companies and force us into a single payer option (which is what they are probably hoping for). The premiums that youy and I pay go into a pool to pay for everyone elses medical issues. So lets say my health insurance company has 10 customers, they are betting on the fact that probably one of the ten will devolop some form of cancer or whatever, and the rest of the premiums will help cover that. But now if we ban the pre-existing conditions, now we have 20 custumers and 10 of them have cancer. Not enough money in the pool to cover the expenses.

Now this is not to say I disagree with the pre-existing condition rule. I dont think it is right that some one cant get insurance because of an illness, but unless our premiums go way higher the insurance companies will go bankrupt and it will give the government reason to go to single payer, Which I absoulutely disagree with.

buzz
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Omicron Percei 8 .gif

Re: US Health Reform

Postby buzz on Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:35 am

I'm looking for the link on the explanation on why insurance companies actually like this bill.

My concern is what "Cadillac" insurance is.. Am I going to be taxed more cuz I bought into Blue Cross PPO?

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: US Health Reform

Postby awp-killer on Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:31 pm

James wrote:Now this is not to say I disagree with the pre-existing condition rule. I dont think it is right that some one cant get insurance because of an illness, but unless our premiums go way higher the insurance companies will go bankrupt and it will give the government reason to go to single payer, Which I absoulutely disagree with.
My intuition on this is insurance companies aren't the evil corporations they are made out to be. I believe that many of them don't want to exclude/drop people based on pre-existing conditions/sickness, but these people are a "liability", and will cost more than the money they bring in. Even though they may want to cover these people, they still need to make a profit. They can't cover these things and still be competitive when other insurance companies don't.

This health care reform fixes this problem because it requires all the insurance companies to remove bans on pre-existing conditions, remove caps of lifetime coverage, etc. I would be highly skeptical of anyone saying this will drive insurance companies out of business because it is a requirement for the entire industry. (Example: You don't see credit cards going out of business because we banned some of the unfair ways credit card companies can weasel money out of you.)



My concern is what "Cadillac" insurance is.. Am I going to be taxed more cuz I bought into Blue Cross PPO?
I doubt it, and definitely not until 2018. What do you mean by "buy in"? Does your employer provide it, and does it cost more than $27k?

Right now, employers can provide health care to their employees tax free. Some corporations who wish to dole out lots of money to their employees with absurd bonuses will sometimes do so with extravagent health plans instead, so they don't have to pay any taxes. Hence the term, "Cadillac" plans. This is sort of circumventing the tax system, and in addition, this is evidently a big part of why medical inflation is so high. By taxing employer-based health plans that cost more than $27k a year, we not only get a big revenue source for the rest of the health care reform, but we help suppress the cost of ever increasing medical costs.

Unions have a problem with this, because not only do they have high medical costs (think: coal miners and factory workers), but they have long faught for these type of benefits from their employers. They bitched about it, and they got the democrats to give them a little better deal because they are in a "high-risk" profession (ie, the tax starts at $31k instead of $27k).

James
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:12 pm

Re: US Health Reform

Postby James on Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:41 pm

I have the same thing, I dont think that qualifies. I think its only the Union health insurances that are consdired cadillac.

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: US Health Reform

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:18 pm

i don't know about them being evil but they are a business

ideally they don't want to treat you for anything. they want young healthy people. so they just get money in and
don't pay any money. of course who wouldn't want that.

when the people in charge of keeping you healthy's goal is to make the most money they can for their share holders
it sets up a very bad system. you know how it is, it's not enough to make profits, you have to make more profits
than you made last year or you are failing and will get fired. they gotta keep squeezing pennies out of dollars to
make everyone happy with them.

hopefully this helps out but we shall see.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: US Health Reform

Postby -PC-Taishar on Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:01 am

Government owns:
Banks? Check.
Biggest car manufacturer in the world? Check
Health Care? Check

What's left?

I would just like to know when people stopped relying on themselves and their immediate friends and family and started relying on the government. For EVERYTHING. It's like we can't function anymore without the government having a say in how we do it.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: US Health Reform

Postby HangOver on Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:17 am

welfare nation.

3s.WyldGoat
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:13 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia.gif

Re: US Health Reform

Postby 3s.WyldGoat on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:03 am

I agree with the Government owning banks/car companies as bad.. but health care?

Maybe it doesn't affect you directly, but if you were too poor to afford health insurance and your kid got sick... then what? If you can't afford health care you obviously can't afford to pay for medical bills of your kid.

Think about other people that this will benefit for, and not just the fact that you lost "freedom".

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: US Health Reform

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:59 am

how the fuck does the government owning a bank and a car company have to do with me and my family benefiting

the people that benefited the most from the government doing that is the banks and the car company itself and
owners and CEOs of those companies.

and obviously not even the factory workers since they had to get rid of a shit ton of them anyway.

i think they are unrelated. the funniest part is if i had to guess it's probably the middle class that gets fucked the
most by health care costs. poor people don't go till they are about to die and than they use the emergency room
and probably don't pay their bill and rich people already have bad ass coverage or the money no problem. people
in the middle have enough to be covered but they probably use it more often than most, even if you are just covering
your deductible, taking yourself, wife, and kids to the dentist or general physician must cost a shit ton of money
add to that the fact that your getting money removed from your paycheck to cover your part of the coverage your job
doesn't cover unless you have a company that covers 100% which must be awesome.

it's almost like good healthcare is a luxury. like eating at a fine restaurant. i don't know, i guess some people feel that's
the way it should be?

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: US Health Reform

Postby -PC-Taishar on Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:15 am

3s.WyldGoat wrote:Maybe it doesn't affect you directly, but if you were too poor to afford health insurance and your kid got sick... then what? If you can't afford health care you obviously can't afford to pay for medical bills of your kid.


Then you shouldn't be having kids. Yes, that sounds calloused but it's true. People need to be more responsible. I don't need the government encroaching in every part of my life just because someone who can't afford ONE kid is having FOUR. On a pseudo side note. If i couldn't afford help, and my kid got sick I could still take them to the emergency room and they WOULD be treated. It's not like we currently tell sick people too fucking bad. If the situation is grave enough, the person does get treated regardless of their ability to pay. The problem now is going to be that every Tom Dick and Harry crackhead is going to go in for treatment for every single scraped knee they have, and the taxpayer is going to pay for it.

It is NOT the governments place to care for the needy. It is an individual choice. I'm not rich, hence I don't pay a lot of taxes. And in all actuality, I will probably benefit from a LOT of the socialist policies the government is implementing. That doesn't make it right, and just because it benefits me doesn't mean I'm going to vote for/condone it. It seems that now a days people vote for whatever is good for them, not for what is right. The funny thing is everything is paid for by somebody. It's just that nobody ever considers who that 'somebody' is. Government money is free money right?

I wouldn't say good health care is a luxury, but some person had to sacrifice a good portion of their life in order to make it to the point to be able to take care of other people. That commodity is worth a lot of money and hence doctors SHOULD make a lot of money.

Honestly, I don't know the answer to it all, health care is ridiculously expensive. I think there are many places costs could be trimmed A LOT. I know for a fact that medical supply manufacturers over charge when they know an insurance company is involved because they know they'll get paid. And insurance companies don't use their collective power to negotiate good deals, they just pass increased cost on to consumers. I guess in the end I think we could eliminate insurance altogether and save a fuckton of money. All they are is a middle man and everyone knows a middle man only increases costs.

As hard as it sounds, health care is NOT a right. It is a privilege. You do not have the RIGHT to have someone take many years of hard work out of their life in order to become educated enough to treat your illnesses. That person is kind enough to sacrifice that much time in order to take care of people. Be it because he has a good heart, or he's just in it for the money. Their decisions are their own and nobody has a RIGHT to be treated by them.

[GWR]Droogan
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: US Health Reform

Postby [GWR]Droogan on Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:16 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:Government owns:
Banks? Check.
Biggest car manufacturer in the world? Check
Health Care? Check

What's left?


The government doesn't own Wickednet yet does it? Maybe Buzz should get a bailout.

MaDSpartus
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: US Health Reform

Postby MaDSpartus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:24 pm

i just want you guys to know that the wealthiest of nations (not the US, you guys are fucking up to your eyeballs in debt) all own huge companies.

Ill give some examples.

60% of Singapore's GDP comes from publicly held companies. Think about that, its quite a rich state. They are a huge fuel producer and yet they have no oil, just massive refineries. State owns part of tons of companies, alot of them financial.

A huge amount of Hong Kong's government income comes from corporate investments. They tend not to own so much as invest, I know its the same thing but im emphasizing they control a little less. I think its about 30% of their gov. revenue, quite substantial.

The North European states have huge holding companies. So much so that I've read about complaints about them effecting the European investment climate. This is obviously paid by oil. Same thing goes with UAE and Saudi obviously.

Most of the asian giant due this to great success. China, Taiwan, Korea, they all own or invest tons in corporations, and they are all quite obviously very capitalist environments.

Public holding meshes perfectly with Capitalism, if companies are profitable why shouldnt the government invest in them. It even works with socialism, with the extra income they can afford to keep up the minimum living standard. What you all fear is communism, or the abandonment of capitalism. This environment destroys private wealth, prevents people from running private comapnies, and forces everyone to accept the same standard of living. As demonstrated all over the world, the use of government investment or holding on corporations has nothing to do with this. The most aggressive capitalist markets in the world do this to an even greater degree than the US does, and have been for a long time. Your government (and mind too) seems to prefer debt to dividend, a situation which is obviously retarded.

Khemikal
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 5361
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida.gif

Re: US Health Reform

Postby Khemikal on Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:15 pm

Just FYI I would argue that China is running an artificially inflated economy...some interesting research and papers on this type of thing if you are into International economics. What is scary is if China craps out in the near future then we are really going to see a worldwide economic collapse.

MaDSpartus
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: US Health Reform

Postby MaDSpartus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:46 pm

this is true, i would not consider china my #1 example of this practice, they are economically special.

they have a government constructed economy.

the others i mentioned like singapore and HK have a government participatory economy

and us NA countries have corporations that run our gov.

they run us, not vice versa :P (well at least some times it seems like it)

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: US Health Reform

Postby -PC-Taishar on Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:56 am

MaDSpartus wrote:What you all fear is communism, or the abandonment of capitalism.


Unfortunately it doesn't seem anybody fears that. And incidentally I have no problem with a government that wishes to invest in profitable companies. I think that would be a great idea. Investment is a free market idea. The problem arises when the government, because of it's holdings, starts to dictate policy. It has happened with the banks by telling them how much they can pay their executives, and it has happened with Government Motors by telling them which dealerships to shut down, and what brands to sell off.

Obviously GM was going to crap ANYWAY which means the government shouldn't have invested in it in the first place. Same with all the banks the gov 'invested' in. If a government is going to invest in a company it should invest in a fiscally sound company. One that is guaranteed to get an ROI. IE M$, IBM, Google, P&G. These companies provide nice dividends year after year and would be a GREAT source of income for the government. Perhaps if they could start making revenue off investments, they could lower taxes stimulating yet more economic growth.

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron