80MM Hours - Obamacare - Death Panels are coming...

[dogtowner]

They do...but the idiot rantings of the right. You know what would realy help me and my situation out...Single Payer Health care...so my Fiancee did not end up having a good health care plan but having to pay so much in expensises still that even making more then 50,000 a year..and having almost no major expensive outside health care cost...knowing that if her health gets worse and it costs her her job..that we are not going to end up bankrupt quickly yet making a near near 6 figure income right now. Knowing that her Current insurance would not have covered the device that may have saved her life...While a bunch of idiots talk about fake death panals...ignoring that we have them now...They are called your insurance company.

single payer solves nothing. the panels are documented, no value calling it otherwise.
you have recourse against a company, you have none with the government.

 

[dogtowner]

So you all think that an industry that makes a 3% profit is excessive and is what's driving medical costs?
Can't wait to see the price tag on a government ran/controlled single payer system. Insurance has already gone up $3000 per family since '09, and very little of the Health care act has been activated.

its not the profit margin that hurts so much as the defensive medicine. its a complicated mess but there is no reason for costs to be this high.

 

[dogtowner]

I am sorry, your wife just died...but you can be rest assured it was not a goverment bureaucrat that said the costs was to high..It was a Profit making companies Bureaucrat that did it, so you can rejoice in that. Please pay the bill on the way out the door.

And you want lower costs...Unless you plan to kill the old, or address Profits...its not going to happen.

address profits ? no, address costs.

 

[Cruella]

Bolding added by me. Which is it? Is it unknown or is it a numbers game?

Both can happen in any business. The cost of an insurance plan is based on statistical experience. But unforseen costs can also present themselves that were unknown when the prices were set.

insurance gouging? Doesn't that kind of make the case for single payer?

What I said was, I looked up the profits of the insurance industry when they were being accused of price gouging and obscene profits. As for "single payer", that's like medicare. Government controlled and paid.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. What the hell does the IRS have to do with anything I posted?

You said; "We don't now and won't in the future have a single payer system so drop that right now". I happen to disagree with you. I brought up the IRS because it has been given the task to police whether or not you have insurance and to tax you accordingly. (a defacto form of single payer).

Did you miss the part where i said the ACA is bad? I think you did. I in fact said the ACA is bad, not good, but if you want to act like I said it was good go right ahead.

did you? Not in your post to me.

Once again, WTF does that have to do with what I posted All I said is that single payer is a funding mechanism. Get over yourself already. Argue with me based upon what I actually said, not based upon whatever it is that you think I said.

I only responded to your remark to me about the $3000 increase and who's fault that was, which has been caused by the ACA, and I gave you an example of what has already been put into effect.

 

[Cruella]

btw, regarding number two, it only means something if you say out of how many the rankings consider. Number 86? That means nothing when isolated.

It also showed the profit of 3.3%.

and regarding number three, Obama can say all he wants about single payer, the ACA doesn't establish single payer, so whatever baby.

No, but it mandates everything the insurance companies HAVE to provide, which eliminates competition and choice. A lot of businesses are going to drop their employee insurance and pay the fine, putting their employees on what, medicaid? It seems to me, that this law will eventually only have one outcome.

This Health care law, if allowed to stand, is the trojan horse to a government run one payer plan.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

address profits ? no, address costs.

single payer solves nothing. the panels are documented, no value calling it otherwise.
you have recourse against a company, you have none with the government.

It must be documented with Obamas Kenyan birth certificate and Muslim Prayer rug...other things that only exist in the rights heads. Also you have 2 things you can do...sue..and vote them out...well really only 1 since you guys want to make it hard to sue medical companies...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It must be documented with Obamas Kenyan birth certificate and Muslim Prayer rug...other things that only exist in the rights heads. Also you have 2 things you can do...sue..and vote them out...well really only 1 since you guys want to make it hard to sue medical companies...

 

[Centrehalf]

Both can happen in any business. The cost of an insurance plan is based on statistical experience. But unforseen costs can also present themselves that were unknown when the prices were set.

Please name some of the unforeseen costs in the health insurance industry. They're dealing with a large enough group of people that there aren't any.

What I said was, I looked up the profits of the insurance industry when they were being accused of price gouging and obscene profits. As for "single payer", that's like medicare. Government controlled and paid.

1% is very healthy profit for a baseline industry. Also, profit gives you no indication of whether or not the costs are too high. Single Payer is only a funding mechanism. Government control exists right now, without single payer. If you're so worried about government control you should be looking at what is happening right now.

You said; "We don't now and won't in the future have a single payer system so drop that right now". I happen to disagree with you. I brought up the IRS because it has been given the task to police whether or not you have insurance and to tax you accordingly. (a defacto form of single payer).

How is this a "de facto" form of single payer? The ACA keeps large insurance companies operating, I'd like to see your definition of single payer because I'm just not seeing a "de facto" single payer system evolving here.

did you? Not in your post to me.

This is the 4th time I've said it in this thread alone...the ACA is bad for the country. You're only not reading my posts in this thread? I doubt that.

I only responded to your remark to me about the $3000 increase and who's fault that was, which has been caused by the ACA, and I gave you an example of what has already been put into effect.

Caused by something that isn't even implemented yet? I can't name one state that even has their pool mechanism fully in place yet and you're saying that the ACA has already raised premiums by almost $300 per month? Sounds like gouging to me.

 

[Centrehalf]

you have recourse against a company, you have none with the government.

Could you please elaborate? The government gets sued, so does Medicare. I'm not sure why you think a single payer system would prevent lawsuits.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

You know--the real problem with high cost of health care is--

1. Doctors who go into the profession to become millionaires. 90% do. Fact.
2. High cost of new equipment to diagnose and treat--and the cost to locate them all over.
3. High cost of the dying--a cash-cow for everyone.
But a group of liberal Grinnell graduates to decide "who goes" is lunacy.
Perhaps have the rules debated by Congress and let the People's House decide.
4. High drug and medicine costs--someone has to pay to invent/discover/manufacture them.

People need to decide--the best under a for-profit incentive--or--an altruistic system.
Perhaps a whole new system would be better and good minds ought to remove the clutter of persuasions they hold dear and look at things with a fresh eye.

 

[Cruella]

Please name some of the unforeseen costs in the health insurance industry. They're dealing with a large enough group of people that there aren't any.

I see all kinds of things like 9/11, government regulations, class action lawsuits, liability increases, technological requirements, (like what was mandated in the healthcare bill}, economic downturns, bankrupt copanies not able to pay premiums, virulent flu seasons, etc. This past summer there was a hantavirous outbreak in Yosemite. 10's of thousands of campers were notified of health risks. You can bet a good chunk of these campers were going to the dr, as this is a potentially fatal disease. I'm sure insurance companies raise their rates to recover prior years losses, expecting to lose a percentage of enrollees, but at what percentage to stay competitive. I worked for a company that changed their policy carrier 3 times in five years.

1% is very healthy profit for a baseline industry. Also, profit gives you no indication of whether or not the costs are too high. Single Payer is only a funding mechanism. Government control exists right now, without single payer. If you're so worried about government control you should be looking at what is happening right now.

I totally disagree with 1% being healthy for any business. I've been following this healthcare issue ever since Obama was elected. Call it intuition or distrust, or paranoia or whatever, but I am convinced that it has all the bones of becoming exactly what it is designed to do. To eventually force out the insurance industry, private hospitals and medical practices and become a behemoth government agency, capturing a huge chunk of our economy.

How is this a "de facto" form of single payer? The ACA keeps large insurance companies operating, I'd like to see your definition of single payer because I'm just not seeing a "de facto" single payer system evolving here.

There have been all kinds of costs and #s of new IRS hires bantered about. At first it was billions, and 19,000 new employees. I don't think anyone has nailed it down. But I just don't get how adding a new tax line to the 1040, 940, 941 and W-3 forms would require anything more than slight computer tweeking of the forms. (The IRS does this all the time.). If those numbers prove out to be correct, than what will these new hires and IRS employees be doing? HHS was originally given $500 million for implementation and a billion dollar slush fund which has supposedly already been spent. It seems at this point, the IRS is the most logical agency to collect and enforce compliance. I don't see HHS as being able to handle that, but I suppose that could change as all the kinks get worked out, which could take years.

This is the 4th time I've said it in this thread alone...the ACA is bad for the country. You're only not reading my posts in this thread? I doubt that.

Okay....I was only responding to the five points you had addressed to me, not other conversations with other members.

Caused by something that isn't even implemented yet? I can't name one state that even has their pool mechanism fully in place yet and you're saying that the ACA has already raised premiums by almost $300 per month? Sounds like gouging to me.

Gouging? Again? Insurance companies have been busy trying to conform to the thousands of new HHS regulations. One has been their data programs. Setting up new systems, software, employee retraining is not cheap. Another is to cover people with prior health problems. Another is requirement to cover "childrem" until age 26. Another one I mentioned above is hospitals being heavily fined for patients readmitted within 30 days of hospitalization. In order to prevent the fines, they are testing patients for more things and keeping them longer, at additional costs to the insurance companies. I think these increases are to be expected with all these new mandates coming down. There will be more "unknown" costs to the insurance companies that lay ahead, that is if they can stay in business. This bill is not finalized, and won't be for years as new problems with it arise.

This reminds me of the engineer thinking his design is perfect and the production department can't make it happen, or be built without contant redesign. Or the artichetect who thinks his plan is buildable, but the construction department can't make it happen without constant redesign. And usually at great "unforseen" costs.

 

[Centrehalf]

Cruella, I'm not going to go point for point with quotes with you anymore in this thread. If I get something wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of what you said.

I asked you to give me your definition of single-payer, you haven't. I get that you're worried about government control but as I stated before, that is seperate from the funding mechanism. You haven't countered this.

List all of the unusual events you want to, my point is that when you're dealing with a large enough sample, as large insurance companies do, you know what your expenses are going to be. There are unusual events every year.

The post I made that you originally responded to was about single-payer. You've given me a lot about government control of services rendered and about insurance companies, in other words, the multiple payer system You still haven't addressed the point I originally made.

What do you think is wrong with single-payer? BTW, I think there are potential problems with SP too, but I think they are far fewer than what we have now.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Cruella, I'm not going to go point for point with quotes with you anymore in this thread. If I get something wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of what you said.

I asked you to give me your definition of single-payer, you haven't. I get that you're worried about government control but as I stated before, that is seperate from the funding mechanism. You haven't countered this.

List all of the unusual events you want to, my point is that when you're dealing with a large enough sample, as large insurance companies do, you know what your expenses are going to be. There are unusual events every year.

The post I made that you originally responded to was about single-payer. You've given me a lot about government control of services rendered and about insurance companies, in other words, the multiple payer system You still haven't addressed the point I originally made.

What do you think is wrong with single-payer? BTW, I think there are potential problems with SP too, but I think they are far fewer than what we have now.

One must always remember--for every dollar that goes to the "single-payer"--the US Government--10 cents is actually beneficial--90 cents is squandered in an orgy of liberal conventions, confabs, parties, over-staffing into the millions and every liberal college alumni hiring every fellow graduate and giving them $200,000/yr+$80,000 in benefits. To start--that is where the money goes--then--the costs begin to skyrocket.

Have you ever been to Washington, DC?

The model--every other government-run program.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.

How's that--for reason.

 

[dogtowner]

Could you please elaborate? The government gets sued, so does Medicare. I'm not sure why you think a single payer system would prevent lawsuits.

well as I scan google results on lawsuits I notice a couple interesting trends, first that they are class actions over policy changes not individuals over disputes. individuals sue insurance companies regularly.

regarding single payer, if the single payer is the single insurer then there is streamlining otherwise its overhead and I don't see how additional overhead is beneficial. if there is tat single insurer thats a monopoly and that is seldom good. given the government's history on running things, can you really want more of that ?

 

[Cruella]

Cruella, I'm not going to go point for point with quotes with you anymore in this thread. If I get something wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of what you said.

I asked you to give me your definition of single-payer, you haven't. I get that you're worried about government control but as I stated before, that is seperate from the funding mechanism. You haven't countered this.

List all of the unusual events you want to, my point is that when you're dealing with a large enough sample, as large insurance companies do, you know what your expenses are going to be. There are unusual events every year.

The post I made that you originally responded to was about single-payer. You've given me a lot about government control of services rendered and about insurance companies, in other words, the multiple payer system You still haven't addressed the point I originally made.

What do you think is wrong with single-payer? BTW, I think there are potential problems with SP too, but I think they are far fewer than what we have now.

I did give you an example of single payer. Medicare. A lot of doctors will not take medicare patients. The hastle of the paperwork and sometimes going back and forth with getting paid can take 6 months to a year. The same thing happens with large corporations. This will destroy small private practices.

9/11 was an unusual event and cost insurance companies in the 10's of billions. If they built these remote possibilities into their systems they would for sure show huge profits pay huge amounts of taxes on a remote possibility and then get accused of gouging. But 9/11 is not the only major event that could unexpectedly affect a populations health.