1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Health Insurance & Cost Controls

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Greco, Jul 22, 2009.

  1. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It’s obvious the health care industry is not willing to “reform” themselves, just as the financial institutions and stock market demonstrated, the honor system doesn’t seem like such a swell concept in actual practice. Regulations, generated by legislation, and enforced by regulators is the only viable method to establish a reasonable approach to gaining control of escalating costs.

    The issue of 47 million Americans with no health insurance is a shameful statistic that needs to be addressed and resolved. Private, for profit carriers, have had decades to influence a change, but have resisted at every level. Now there is overwhelming support among Americans to take up this issue and fix it with a public option. Creating an option through a national pool would lower the cost, and bring it down to a level individuals priced out of the market could absorb. The private, for profit insurance companies have refused to do it, so our only other recourse is through the government. Actually, this doesn't require the creation of something all that new. We already have a national health insurance plan that federal employees, including our representatives, belong to.

    It's been reported that the health insurance industry is so fearful of having competition, even for the the 47 million Americans that can't afford to purchase from them, or are denied coverage because of a pre-exisiting condition, that they've created a virtual army of lobbyists sweeping across Washington. News agencies have reported that they're spending $1.5 million a day in an effort to buy support from our representatives to maintain the status quo. Experience has show us that dangling the moolah in front of our representatives is usually an effective and successful technique to secure their support. Maybe this time will be different.

    As debate continues on this issue I would hope our elected officials bring forth an honest debate and leave the fear and distortions out of it. We’re not discussing “socialized medicine”, or having the government run health care in America. The issue is not losing an individual choice of doctors; it’s about cost control and affordable health insurance. If our elected officials genuinely hold a personal view that a public option for all Americans is so threatening and damaging for our country, then I would suggest they publicly demonstrate the depth of their convictions by voluntarily opting out of the federal health insurance program they're currently receiving, but would deny to the rest of us. Absent of that action it would seem any arguments against this measure would take on a hypocritical status.
     
    2 people like this.
  2. algranny

    algranny New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Currently we have 2 government sponsored health care options, medicaid and medicare, both are going bankrupt, both are riddled with fraud and waste. I would support reform of the current health care options, clean them up and run them efficiently before pursuing a larger portion of the population. If you can't control the current problems, why add more, that is illogical.

    I am still waiting on anyone who can point to ONE federal program, that is run efficiently and cost saving to americans. Why should we trust the government to make decisions for ourselves and our families, when they can't run ONE single federal program correctly at all??????????
     
  3. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    The numbers I've referenced show less than 10 million people without coverage. It is also clear that the government can't control themselves when it comes to programs, so how can we trust that it will happen here.

    The real answer is to expand competition by eliminating the state line restrictions and to disconnect the employer-insurer bond. I have recently switched to a much less expensive HSA plan which allows me to cover my own general health expenses, while providing very solid Major Medical and Emergency coverage. This is coming at a cost 20% less than the employer coverage I've had.

    Let's get patients, doctors, and hospitals closer together and keep politicians, lobbyists, and insurers in their place.
     
  4. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Develop a pre-existing condition and your ability to purchase coverage evaporates. Bush and the Republicans help create the Medicare and Medicaid costs by eliminating the ability to negotiate. That's a dumb idea now, and it was a dumb idea when they were bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that have benefited by being able to legally over-charge.
     
  5. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    The pre-existing condition issue is a great point. This is another reason why your health insurance shouldn't be tied to your employment. Someone with health issues ends up at risk every time they change jobs. Your health care should be yours and should be attached to you for a lifetime.

    Will premiums be larger for people with higher risk factors? Yes! This is true for auto and life insurance as well. If not, their is no personal responsibility. Like the person with throat cancer, who after surgery keeps smoking or the person who had a double bi-pass that has a Crispy Kreme frequent buyer card.

    The key is that health providers will create groups/clinics/hospitals that will focus on specific markets (some of them high risk patients) allowing them to provide the specific care necessary for those vertical target markets (like diabetics). Right now, we're all lumped in together and it lowers the quality and raises the cost for all.
     
  6. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I noticed you listed no verifiable, credible source to support your statistics that don't conform to the same numbers issued by our government.

    Also, if you find yourself without health insurance, then develop a pre-existing condidition, no health insurance company will allow you to purchase coverage. You kinda left that part out too.
     
  7. algranny

    algranny New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are no guarantees that UHC won't restrict any treatments, or potential life saving techniques. Curious, what is your opinion of the rationing of health care that will take place under the current plan. A panel, appointed by the government will decide if you are worthy of life saving treatments. Do you truly feel that the government cares about your health? You also haven't addressed the fact that medicare and medicaid is broke, how can this nation afford to cover more. Why not reform the failure of the 2 current health programs. Why should we trust the politicians?

    America has always had the best medical treatments across the world, many come to the US for their health conditions. Obamacare offers nothing but promises of quality health care at affordable prices. We should know by the stimulus, that the devil is in the details. Would you not agree that the people should know what is contained in any bill before being voted on and signed?
     
  8. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Clear & truthful... a well written synopsis of the real dynamics of the healthcare problem in the US. When you have a problem you address it and not ignore it.

    Basically what is purposed is actually having a provider that would be able to pick up those Americans without jobs or that their job doesn't supply healthcare... or others that want the government plan because it is less expensive. And as you've rightly stated this competition for the first time may encourage insurance companies to offer more affordable insurance plans themselves to keep up their own customer base.

    And you make another good point that it would be very symbolic if our elected officials would join the government plan themselves. My guess is though that is unlikely. Mainly because just like everyone else that has health insurance offered at work they will have a choice of which they want to go with. They have very good health insurance provided through work so my guess is they'd keep that.

    And if you think about it if they "had to" take the government plan then that would be exactly what most people don't want. They want a safety net and a choice.

    I think that's exactly what they're working on doing with the President's plan.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I spent 7 years at a company part time, why part time? simple did not want to pay medical though 40 hour weeks happened alot still. finnaly got it after a legal threat ....then about 7 months later had a shot at what had been my dream job...I took it...it did not work out....I had no job and no insurance again...went back worked 2 jobs again , again no health care...moral of the story is, if I have a family member that relies on that health care again..I would think twice about that risk of changing jobs becuse while it may be a move up, if it fails I can't afford the cost of loss of that insurance.

    a very close freind had her position taken away ...she was very lucky that she talked to them and got them to keep her insurance going for a few extra months when she lost her job....even more lucky when she got a new one, it had a slightly better health care plan....she needed a surgury that likey may saved her life....had she been at other job she may not have got it covered . SO turns out lossing her job helped her....but could go the other way around....how is health care picked....you go with what your job pays for.

    Should her life be based on where she works? I dont think so. she was also very lucky to get it even covered as it was a pre existing condition.

    this is not a system that works, is fair, and that will keep costing more and more...and covering less and less.
     
Loading...

Share This Page