special privileges

[Dr.Who]

Right. Then, let's get t he government out of it and allow the churches to decide who they will and won't allow to marry. That way, if one church refuses, the couple can go to any number of others, and no one has a monopoly on who can and can't marry.




If government gets out of the marriage business, then it makes sense that they should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging reproduction.

That would be the best way.

 

[Dr.Who]

That makes sense in a way, but the fact remains that buying individual policies on the open market is prohibitively expensive,

Again it is gov policies that have caused it to be so expensive for individual policies. The greatest expense is that one must use after tax money. Then there are a number of gov policies that have caused prices to go up both for insurance and for health care in general.

and excludes pre existing conditions.

A basic rule of insurance that cannot be altered is that the insurance company must make at least a very small profit or they will go out of business. Therefore the cost of "insurance" for a preexisting condition must cost at least as much as the cost of the treatment for the condition, plus a little more. Why would anyone want to buy insurance to cover, say, a broken leg, when they could just pay the doctor directly and it would be less?

But let's not confuse insurance with a buyers club. Insurance is always to cover unexpected expenses that would be too difficult to pay for IF they occur. If you already have the condition it is not insurance. If you already have the condition then you are hoping to get a discount buy joining the club, or you are hoping to get others to pay for your care. Neither one of these is insurance.

Further, people with health issues or of advanced age cannot buy policies at any price.

There are numerous life insurance policies that cost very little when you are young and as you continue to pay into them you can keep the policy to cash in when eventually you die. That death is a 100% certainty but the premiums that have been paid all along make up for that.

With age and sickness it becomes pretty certain that a real old person will have some expensive treatments. That is why health insurance is meant to be purchased while young and healthy and held for a long time.

Philosophically, I agree that the government should just stand aside and let private enterprise work. In the case of health care, however, that philosophy won't work

So far it has been working as well as health care in all the other countries except that congress has monkeyed around with it and driven up the costs. You can say it won't work but that is an unproven conjecture. I don't really want to give up mine and my neighbors civil liberties based on you unproven conjecture.

and the only alternative is for the government to become involved.

There are several alternatives and they are mostly better than socialism.

The first thing to do is to reduce costs in all the ways our president has said - cutting waste and fraud, as well as inefficiencies. Then we need to establish a fair system for assisting those in need. This can be done morally, within capitalism, and in ways that do not eliminate our civil liberties.

Not just anyone can buy health insurance that actually pays the bills. If it weren't for Medicare, the senior citizens would not have health care at all unless they had managed to amass quite a fortune in their younger years.

Contrary to popular believe the vast majority of seniors are doing much better than the rest of us in terms of how much wealth they have accumulated. They have lived a long time and they have saved - it is that simple. As long as they have kept their policies and paid on time they should, by law, still have a policy.

What we really should do, IMO, is to expand Medicare to include anyone who wants to buy into it. That way, we'd have a real universal medical care plan.

That is the exact opposite of what we should do. That system eventually fails.

Sometimes, pragmatism and reality have to supersede ideology.

[/QUOTE]
The ideology of socialism is what makes it fail. The ideology of capitalism is what makes it practical.

You can't maintain a system that demotivates work and self-interest. You can maintain a system that rewards honest work and channels self-interest into altruistic paths.

 

[PLC1]

Again it is gov policies that have caused it to be so expensive for individual policies. The greatest expense is that one must use after tax money. Then there are a number of gov policies that have caused prices to go up both for insurance and for health care in general.

Such as????

A basic rule of insurance that cannot be altered is that the insurance company must make at least a very small profit or they will go out of business. Therefore the cost of "insurance" for a preexisting condition must cost at least as much as the cost of the treatment for the condition, plus a little more. Why would anyone want to buy insurance to cover, say, a broken leg, when they could just pay the doctor directly and it would be less?

Which explains why private for profit insurance is not a health care system. Sure, it would be cheaper for the patient to pay for a broken leg, unless, of course, that broken leg results in complications that require therapy and and extended hospital stay. In that case, the uninsured is bankrupt and the provider doesn't get paid.

There are numerous life insurance policies that cost very little when you are young and as you continue to pay into them you can keep the policy to cash in when eventually you die. That death is a 100% certainty but the premiums that have been paid all along make up for that.

With age and sickness it becomes pretty certain that a real old person will have some expensive treatments. That is why health insurance is meant to be purchased while young and healthy and held for a long time.

All of which sounds really good, until the health care insurer goes out of business or finds a way to kick out all of the high cost policies.

So far it has been working as well as health care in all the other countries except that congress has monkeyed around with it and driven up the costs. You can say it won't work but that is an unproven conjecture. I don't really want to give up mine and my neighbors civil liberties based on you unproven conjecture.



There are several alternatives and they are mostly better than socialism.

The first thing to do is to reduce costs in all the ways our president has said - cutting waste and fraud, as well as inefficiencies. Then we need to establish a fair system for assisting those in need. This can be done morally, within capitalism, and in ways that do not eliminate our civil liberties.

You are still ignoring the fact that every nation that has adopted a single payer system pays less than we do in the USA.

Contrary to popular believe the vast majority of seniors are doing much better than the rest of us in terms of how much wealth they have accumulated. They have lived a long time and they have saved - it is that simple. As long as they have kept their policies and paid on time they should, by law, still have a policy.

Unless, of course, the insurer has gone out of business.

Back in the good old days, when I was young and health insurance was not a major expense, the employer paid for the premiums. The employer shopped around and found the cheapest policies. No one keeps a single policy for decades.

That is the exact opposite of what we should do. That system eventually fails.

Except it hasn't failed where it has been tried.

 

[Dr.Who]

Such as????

Such as making laws that hinder interstate competition so that of the 3000 or so companies that could be competing with each other each state only as a handful of companies that are competing with each other.

Which explains why private for profit insurance is not a health care system.

It is the major part of the system we have now.

Sure, it would be cheaper for the patient to pay for a broken leg, unless, of course, that broken leg results in complications that require therapy and and extended hospital stay. In that case, the uninsured is bankrupt and the provider doesn't get paid.

That is exactly why people have deductibles. That way they are paying for the simple broken leg themselves and if there are complications the insurance pays for the high costs. Do you have insurance? I ask because there are some basic things here that are ignored by your comments.

All of which sounds really good, until the health care insurer goes out of business or finds a way to kick out all of the high cost policies.

I neglected to mention that (and I think it is by law) that if you keep continuous coverage there is no problem moving from one company to another. One does not need to stay with just one company.

I was just reading an article in the paper today about a woman who had her policy rescinded because she was not truthful on her application. After reading the article it was unclear if she was untruthful or not. She had claimed to have had "no medical problems". But she had had fatigue, cough, and a couple of other things. The insurance company claimed that that was evidence of a chronic condition and dropped her.

But here is the nitty gritty. According to the article of all the people that are insured by this company a whopping 12 had been dropped in the last two years and when it was taken to court 11 times the court sided with the insurance company (it is assumed that the 12th one was the case of this girl that is not decided yet). the article was also kind enough to tell us that in all of Illinois (population 12,901,563) there were a big whopping 400 complaints against all insurance companies by people who were dropped.

This is basically a non-issue.

You are still ignoring the fact that every nation that has adopted a single payer system pays less than we do in the USA.

And I have a bridge to sell you in Nevada.

There are many reasons to doubt those statistics as being meaningful. there is also a snowballs chance in an oven that a new federal plan could result in lower costs/GDP.

Unless, of course, the insurer has gone out of business.

That is why there is a "best rating" for insurance companies. So people know the company won't go out of business. Why don't you tell us how many AAA insurance companies have ever gone out of business in the history of the USA? If any did go out of business were the customers sold to other companies? Did anyone end up without insurance?

Back in the good old days, when I was young and health insurance was not a major expense, the employer paid for the premiums. The employer shopped around and found the cheapest policies. No one keeps a single policy for decades.

Same misunderstanding as above. One does not need to keep a single policy they just need to be continuously insured.

P.S. The employer did not "pay" for the premiums. He offered you a lower salary so that he could pay for the premiums. Did he make a profit in the deal? If so how do you feel about that?



Except it hasn't failed where it has been tried.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dr.Who]

The nice thing about this thread being derailed is that as long as it is alive more people will come here to see that the main point of the thread is uncontested.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In a historic decision, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s (ELCA) 4.7 million member denomination has lifted its ban on noncelibate gay and lesbian pastors and has thus opened the door for lesbian and gay pastors who are in committed same-sex relationships to serve as ministers. Passing 559-451 at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis, Minn., this vote followed on the heels of a 2/3 majority vote on Wednesday August 19, to approve a social statement on human sexuality to acknowledge without judgment the wide variety of views within the ELCA regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusion. This document, which was 8 years in the making, recognizes and supports congregations which conduct blessings of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages where such marriages are legal.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08...lesbian-ministers-in-committed-relationships/

Very gradually Christianity is coming into the new century.

(Sorry I haven't been able to post on this thread, Who, my job has taken me away for a time.)

 

[PLC1]

Such as making laws that hinder interstate competition so that of the 3000 or so companies that could be competing with each other each state only as a handful of companies that are competing with each other.

Surely, a state like California with its 35 million inhabitants would be big enough to allow for adequate competition, but by all means, let's remove that barrier. That is one part of the plan currently being discussed, isn't it?

It is the major part of the system we have now.

Yes, it is, and it is the major problem with the system we have now.

That is exactly why people have deductibles. That way they are paying for the simple broken leg themselves and if there are complications the insurance pays for the high costs. Do you have insurance? I ask because there are some basic things here that are ignored by your comments.

Yes, I have coverage. Anyone my age, actually anyone at all, is risking losing everything they have if they don't have coverage. I have a deductible, too, nothing wrong with that. What we really need is a catastrophic care package that covers everyone, so that no one goes bankrupt, and the care providers aren't left holding the bag when a patient can't pay.

I neglected to mention that (and I think it is by law) that if you keep continuous coverage there is no problem moving from one company to another. One does not need to stay with just one company.

Right, just as long as you aren't unemployed, and don't try to open a private business. If you're young and healthy, you can buy insurance to fill the gap. If not, you can't. Lose your job, lose your insurance. If you can find another job that provides a group policy, you're OK. If not, you're SOL.

I was just reading an article in the paper today about a woman who had her policy rescinded because she was not truthful on her application. After reading the article it was unclear if she was untruthful or not. She had claimed to have had "no medical problems". But she had had fatigue, cough, and a couple of other things. The insurance company claimed that that was evidence of a chronic condition and dropped her.

But here is the nitty gritty. According to the article of all the people that are insured by this company a whopping 12 had been dropped in the last two years and when it was taken to court 11 times the court sided with the insurance company (it is assumed that the 12th one was the case of this girl that is not decided yet). the article was also kind enough to tell us that in all of Illinois (population 12,901,563) there were a big whopping 400 complaints against all insurance companies by people who were dropped.

Excellent example of why private insurance is inadequate. They will drop costly patients if they can, and then there is no recourse. They are, as I put it before, simply SOL.
.

And I have a bridge to sell you in Nevada.

I'm sure that the state of Nevada has several bridges, but I'm not interested.

There are many reasons to doubt those statistics as being meaningful. there is also a snowballs chance in an oven that a new federal plan could result in lower costs/GDP.

There is considerable doubt that the plan currently being thrash... I mean discussed, will lower costs. If we had some rational debate, we might be able to come up with such a plan, but it doesn't seem possible for the federal government to act rationally. Partisan politics are getting in the way of solving a serious problem.

That is why there is a "best rating" for insurance companies. So people know the company won't go out of business. Why don't you tell us how many AAA insurance companies have ever gone out of business in the history of the USA? If any did go out of business were the customers sold to other companies? Did anyone end up without insurance?

I suppose you could take the position that anyone who tried to save a few bucks by signing up with a non AAA rated company made his/her own bed and so no one has any obligation to save them from themselves. It does seem kind of cold to let people just die, though.

Now, you could argue that an 18 year old who kept continuous coverage through age 65 would be able to get insurance, and not have to worry about pre existing conditions. Said 18 year old would have to be able to keep up with ever increasing costs, of course, but theoretically, they could keep coverage. Of course, those who didn't keep their coverage would simply be out of luck.

P.S. The employer did not "pay" for the premiums. He offered you a lower salary so that he could pay for the premiums. Did he make a profit in the deal? If so how do you feel about that?

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the employer provided health care coverage with untaxed dollars. If the individual had to pay, the money would be taxed and the ultimate cost would be much more. For another thing, the employer is able to get group coverage, which is preferable to individual for a number of obvious reasons. On the other hand, health care is still tied to employment, which makes layoffs doubly painful, and makes it difficult to break with the corporate world and start a small business.

 

[Dr.Who]

Surely, a state like California with its 35 million inhabitants would be big enough to allow for adequate competition, but by all means, let's remove that barrier. That is one part of the plan currently being discussed, isn't it?

One would think. I am not aware of it being in the house bill.

Yes, it is, and it is the major problem with the system we have now.

The system we have now is a combination of public and private. I believe there are far more and more serious problems with the public part of it. It is medicare that is in the red, not the private sector. It is medicare that infringes on the rights of people to buy or not to buy. It is medicare that is giving doctors an incentive not to practice medicine. Yes there are problems with the private sector. Let the gov regulate those problems that are examples of injustice. Then there will be few to no problems left.

Yes, I have coverage. Anyone my age, actually anyone at all, is risking losing everything they have if they don't have coverage. I have a deductible, too, nothing wrong with that. What we really need is a catastrophic care package that covers everyone, so that no one goes bankrupt, and the care providers aren't left holding the bag when a patient can't pay.

Is it your goal in life to take no financial risks? Yes socialism will promise you no financial risks. But so far where it has prospered it has brought down the standard of living for all often in drastic ways and it always reduces freedom.

Do you want our health care system to provide health care or financial insurance?

Right, just as long as you aren't unemployed, and don't try to open a private business. If you're young and healthy, you can buy insurance to fill the gap. If not, you can't. Lose your job, lose your insurance. If you can find another job that provides a group policy, you're OK. If not, you're SOL.

Or you could to what every financial planner on the planet says to do and save 10% of your income. We are talking about people who are employed here. Then if you lose your job you can still purchase insurance. Ten percent is not too much for anyone. For the working poor their salaries are low so it is a pittance and for earners who make more they have no excuse.

Excellent example of why private insurance is inadequate. They will drop costly patients if they can, and then there is no recourse. They are, as I put it before, simply SOL.
.

The pitifully small number of people who get dropped and still have recourse to the courts is not an excellent example of why private insurance is inadequate. Are you aware that medicare can also choose to deny service? Which do you think denies more people service? To qualify for private insurance you have to not lie on your application and pay the premiums for 90 days. to qualify for medicare you have to pay into the system (by force) for a minimum number of years, be 65, and it only covers hospitalization. medicaid also has great limitations, one must be poor. Which is a perfectly reasonable criteria before a person can accept taxpayer funded welfare. the public systems will deny on the one hand anyone who has not paid in for a number of years, is not 65, or makes the wrong claim. Medicaid will deny anyone who is not poor. Each of them denies more people than private insurance does.

There is considerable doubt that the plan currently being thrash... I mean discussed, will lower costs. If we had some rational debate, we might be able to come up with such a plan, but it doesn't seem possible for the federal government to act rationally. Partisan politics are getting in the way of solving a serious problem.

I agree.

I suppose you could take the position that anyone who tried to save a few bucks by signing up with a non AAA rated company made his/her own bed and so no one has any obligation to save them from themselves. It does seem kind of cold to let people just die, though.

Seriously! Virtually no one is advocating letting people die. They are advocating that if a person loses his insurance that a new policy should be easier to get than it is now. That would require a new legislation but not socialism. They are advocating that in the worst scenario a person uses his own assets before asking the taxpayer to give him free health care.

Now, you could argue that an 18 year old who kept continuous coverage through age 65 would be able to get insurance, and not have to worry about pre existing conditions. Said 18 year old would have to be able to keep up with ever increasing costs, of course, but theoretically, they could keep coverage. Of course, those who didn't keep their coverage would simply be out of luck.

They are not out of luck. They have numerous resources for health care. If they want more than health care and they want insurance then they appeal to the public system that is already in place. I would want to see something better replace the current public system but I would not want to see no system in place at all.

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the employer provided health care coverage with untaxed dollars. If the individual had to pay, the money would be taxed and the ultimate cost would be much more. For another thing, the employer is able to get group coverage, which is preferable to individual for a number of obvious reasons. On the other hand, health care is still tied to employment, which makes layoffs doubly painful, and makes it difficult to break with the corporate world and start a small business.

We can solve all those concerns with one stroke of the pen.

Allow all dollars spent on health care to be tax deductible or taxed equally.

 

[PLC1]

One would think. I am not aware of it being in the house bill.

It there were actual rational debate, perhaps it would be added. Still, having competition across state lines is a small thing, certainly not a comprehensive reform by any means.

The system we have now is a combination of public and private. I believe there are far more and more serious problems with the public part of it. It is medicare that is in the red, not the private sector. It is medicare that infringes on the rights of people to buy or not to buy. It is medicare that is giving doctors an incentive not to practice medicine. Yes there are problems with the private sector. Let the gov regulate those problems that are examples of injustice. Then there will be few to no problems left.

Medicare is not in the red, not yet. It may be, as costs continue to climb faster than inflation, while the funds supporting it do not, and as the population continues to age. Private insurance may not be in the red, but premiums are skyrocketing and people are losing their coverage. I don't agree that it is only the public part that has serious problems.

Is it your goal in life to take no financial risks? Yes socialism will promise you no financial risks. But so far where it has prospered it has brought down the standard of living for all often in drastic ways and it always reduces freedom.

Quitting the corporate world to strike out on one's own, or quitting a job to look for a better one, is plenty of risk without adding the possibility of going bankrupt due to medical bills.

Far from being "socialistic", universal medical care makes it easier to change jobs or start a business. it is, in fact, pro liberty and pro capitalism.

Do you want our health care system to provide health care or financial insurance?

The health care system provides health care. What needs to be overhauled is the financial aspect of it. Costs are out of control.

Or you could to what every financial planner on the planet says to do and save 10% of your income. We are talking about people who are employed here. Then if you lose your job you can still purchase insurance. Ten percent is not too much for anyone. For the working poor their salaries are low so it is a pittance and for earners who make more they have no excuse.

Yes, yes, I understand your philosophy. If they lost their coverage, were not prudent, then they are reaping the results of their own decisions.

However, unless we are willing to allow people who have no money to die for lack of care, we will continue to pay their bills. Wouldn't it be better to do so in a more efficient way?

Further, not everyone who finds him/herself in financial difficulty is there due to their own bad decisions.

he pitifully small number of people who get dropped and still have recourse to the courts is not an excellent example of why private insurance is inadequate. Are you aware that medicare can also choose to deny service? Which do you think denies more people service? To qualify for private insurance you have to not lie on your application and pay the premiums for 90 days. to qualify for medicare you have to pay into the system (by force) for a minimum number of years, be 65, and it only covers hospitalization. medicaid also has great limitations, one must be poor. Which is a perfectly reasonable criteria before a person can accept taxpayer funded welfare. the public systems will deny on the one hand anyone who has not paid in for a number of years, is not 65, or makes the wrong claim. Medicaid will deny anyone who is not poor. Each of them denies more people than private insurance does.

Medicare doesn't deny people coverage. Medicaid might, if you aren't poor enough. Private insurance denies coverage to far more than a "pitifully small number of people."

I agree.

And, you are correct.

Seriously! Virtually no one is advocating letting people die. They are advocating that if a person loses his insurance that a new policy should be easier to get than it is now.

Ding, ding! You get the prize! That is exactly what we need to do. The question is how.

That would require a new legislation but not socialism. They are advocating that in the worst scenario a person uses his own assets before asking the taxpayer to give him free health care.

OK, that makes a lot of sense, and is exactly what I've advocated: A catastrophic care package that would cover everyone. You can call it "socialism" if you like, but the fact is that we already pay for people who don't have insurance, either through increased premiums or through taxes. You say you don't want a public option, and that no one is advocating letting people die. Does that mean you are an favor of the hospitals simply eating the losses caused by people who can't pay? Is there another option?

I really don't like HR 3200 per se. It is too complex, and does not address the issue of costs well enough. If it were thrashed rationally through our political process, some of the problems could be worked out. Ranting about death panels and socialism is simply rotten partisan politics, and will accomplish nothing.

They are not out of luck. They have numerous resources for health care. If they want more than health care and they want insurance then they appeal to the public system that is already in place. I would want to see something better replace the current public system but I would not want to see no system in place at all.

Yes, I'd like to see something better to replace the current public system as well. A public option for catastrophic coverage would be my first choice. Failing that, let's take a look at other options.

We can solve all those concerns with one stroke of the pen.

Allow all dollars spent on health care to be tax deductible or taxed equally.

That would be a good step forward. It still would not be comprehensive health care reform, but it would be a good first step.

 

[Dr.Who]

It there were actual rational debate, perhaps it would be added. Still, having competition across state lines is a small thing, certainly not a comprehensive reform by any means.

the lack of debate is not due to a lack of good ideas. How do you explain your not knowing the ideas that come from the conservative side?

Medicare is not in the red, not yet. It may be, as costs continue to climb faster than inflation, while the funds supporting it do not, and as the population continues to age. Private insurance may not be in the red, but premiums are skyrocketing and people are losing their coverage. I don't agree that it is only the public part that has serious problems.

I was clear that there are problems in both parts. The thing about trends compared to inflation is that no one knows if trends will continue or not.

Quitting the corporate world to strike out on one's own, or quitting a job to look for a better one, is plenty of risk without adding the possibility of going bankrupt due to medical bills.

If your employer offers insurance with funds that would have been your salary or you strike out on your own and buy insurance with funds that are your own what is the difference? the amount of money used to buy you insurance is the same either way and the funds are yours either way.

Far from being "socialistic", universal medical care makes it easier to change jobs or start a business. it is, in fact, pro liberty and pro capitalism.

It might make it easier to start a business and it would make it easier to change jobs. But that could be accomplished much more capitalistically and with much more respect to freedom by just not giving tax breaks to insurance offered by employers. It is much simpler.

The health care system provides health care. What needs to be overhauled is the financial aspect of it. Costs are out of control.

Cost are going up everywhere in the world. That is mainly because health care can do more than it used to.

Yes, yes, I understand your philosophy. If they lost their coverage, were not prudent, then they are reaping the results of their own decisions.

However, unless we are willing to allow people who have no money to die for lack of care, we will continue to pay their bills. Wouldn't it be better to do so in a more efficient way?

I am not suggesting that they be permitted to die. We should as a society take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. The worst way to do it would change the fundamental nature of our economy. We can do it much easier.

Further, not everyone who finds him/herself in financial difficulty is there due to their own bad decisions.

This is true. This is why I am in favor of a safety net. just not a socialist one.

Medicare doesn't deny people coverage.

Of course it does. You cannot get coverage unless you have worked and contributed for a number of years. It also denies coverate for treatments in the same way that insurance companies do by determining that certain treatments don't do any good. For example medicare won't pay for virtual colonoscopies.

Medicaid might, if you aren't poor enough. Private insurance denies coverage to far more than a "pitifully small number of people."

The article I read in the paper said 400 people in the state of illinois had their coverage rescinded. That is a pitifully small number. It does deny certain treatments just like medicare does. I think one denies more than the other and you reverse it. I doubt we will get far debating that. Lets agree that when denials are unjust they need to stop.

Ding, ding! You get the prize! That is exactly what we need to do. The question is how.

The biggest obstacle to getting a policy is that most people must get it through an employer to make it cost effective. Simply don't give tax breaks to policies that come from employers. Then standardize the application process so that there are not endless debates about wheter or not a person lied on his application or whether or not a person had a preexisting condidtion.

OK, that makes a lot of sense, and is exactly what I've advocated: A catastrophic care package that would cover everyone. You can call it "socialism" if you like, but the fact is that we already pay for people who don't have insurance, either through increased premiums or through taxes. You say you don't want a public option, and that no one is advocating letting people die. Does that mean you are an favor of the hospitals simply eating the losses caused by people who can't pay? Is there another option?

yes, first people should use their own assets before they are given taxpayer money. Then people should be allowed to borrow from their future ss benefits if they get sick. It would be paid back through future payroll deductions. Then the gov could establish a health care charity that would collect donations directly on tax forms. No tax payer money should be collected as long as the charity is collecting enough.

Yes, I'd like to see something better to replace the current public system as well. A public option for catastrophic coverage would be my first choice. Failing that, let's take a look at other options.

I could back a public option under certain conditions. It would be states operated, it would truly be an option and no one would be forced to join and anyone would be permitted to quit. It would not have unfair competitive advantages over private options. Probably some more that I can't think of just now.

 

[PLC1]

the lack of debate is not due to a lack of good ideas. How do you explain your not knowing the ideas that come from the conservative side?

The lack of debate is due to throwing up half truths and outright lies about giving tax money to unions, about death panels, about offing gramma to save money, about a whole lot of things that are not even being considered. The "conservatives", if there are any left in Washington, just want to torpedo the whole idea of meaningful health care reform.

I was clear that there are problems in both parts. The thing about trends compared to inflation is that no one knows if trends will continue or not.

The upward trend in premiums has been going on for decades. It is unlikely that costs will suddenly quit spiraling out of control spontaneously.

If your employer offers insurance with funds that would have been your salary or you strike out on your own and buy insurance with funds that are your own what is the difference? the amount of money used to buy you insurance is the same either way and the funds are yours either way.

The difference is that group insurance covers more and costs less. The difference is that a lot of us can't get coverage at any price.

It might make it easier to start a business and it would make it easier to change jobs. But that could be accomplished much more capitalistically and with much more respect to freedom by just not giving tax breaks to insurance offered by employers. It is much simpler.

Giving tax breaks would be a good first step. It wouldn't help an individual with a chronic health issue, however.

Cost are going up everywhere in the world. That is mainly because health care can do more than it used to.

It is partly because health care can do more now. It is partly due to the fear of lawsuits. It is partly due to the fact that there are some who can't pay, and the providers have to make up the difference. There are a lot of reasons why health care is so expensive.

I am not suggesting that they be permitted to die. We should as a society take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. The worst way to do it would change the fundamental nature of our economy. We can do it much easier.

Single payer health care is not changing the fundamental nature of our economy. it is changing the fundamental nature of our health insurance only.

This is true. This is why I am in favor of a safety net. just not a socialist one.

You'd like to see a capitalist safety net? I wonder how that might work?

Of course it does. You cannot get coverage unless you have worked and contributed for a number of years. It also denies coverate for treatments in the same way that insurance companies do by determining that certain treatments don't do any good. For example medicare won't pay for virtual colonoscopies.

Anyone over the age of 65 can get Medicare. It might not pay for virtual colonoscopies, I'm not sure. Every type of coverage has a list of what it will and will not pay for.

The article I read in the paper said 400 people in the state of illinois had their coverage rescinded. That is a pitifully small number. It does deny certain treatments just like medicare does. I think one denies more than the other and you reverse it. I doubt we will get far debating that. Lets agree that when denials are unjust they need to stop.

Yes, let's. Even one denial is one too many.

The biggest obstacle to getting a policy is that most people must get it through an employer to make it cost effective.

Yes, that is the biggest obstacle, along with the pre existing conditions clause.

Simply don't give tax breaks to policies that come from employers.

Yes, and watch employers drop health insurance like a hot potato, or go out of business trying to do the right thing by their employees.

Then standardize the application process so that there are not endless debates about wheter or not a person lied on his application or whether or not a person had a preexisting condidtion.

Yes, let's do that.

yes, first people should use their own assets before they are given taxpayer money.

That is already the case with MediCal, which is the insurance for the poor here in California. I'll bet it is the same in other states as well.

Then people should be allowed to borrow from their future ss benefits if they get sick. It would be paid back through future payroll deductions. Then the gov could establish a health care charity that would collect donations directly on tax forms. No tax payer money should be collected as long as the charity is collecting enough.

If health care charity were collected on tax forms, how would that not be taxpayer money? Are you suggesting that enough could be collected by voluntary deductions?

I think you're dreaming on that one.

I could back a public option under certain conditions. It would be states operated, it would truly be an option and no one would be forced to join and anyone would be permitted to quit. It would not have unfair competitive advantages over private options. Probably some more that I can't think of just now.

I could back such an option also. It could be state operated instead of federal, but that would raise a lot of issues about residency. Perhaps the issues could be worked out.

I believe a public option that anyone could join and quit, along with the choice of opting for private insurance, is the same thing that the pres is advocating. Whether or not the Congress will write such a proposal remains to be seen.

 

[Dr.Who]

The lack of debate is due to throwing up half truths and outright lies about giving tax money to unions, about death panels, about offing gramma to save money, about a whole lot of things that are not even being considered. The "conservatives", if there are any left in Washington, just want to torpedo the whole idea of meaningful health care reform.

There most certainly is a lot of background noise. No excuse for not knowing the issues - and that is an indictment of all of us.

 

[Dr.Who]

The upward trend in premiums has been going on for decades. It is unlikely that costs will suddenly quit spiraling out of control spontaneously.

Some of those costs are going up because we are getting more care. Nothing to be done about that.

Some of it is be due to supply and demand. Those will level off precisely when they get too high.

Same with tuition costs and a host of other things that keep going up and are used by fear mongers to scare people.

 

[Dr.Who]

The difference is that group insurance covers more and costs less. The difference is that a lot of us can't get coverage at any price.

So what is stopping you from banding together with a bunch of other people and getting a group policy?

What is stopping you from shopping around as an individual with money to spend and forcing down the costs of individual policies?

Congress is the answer to the second question.

 

[Dr.Who]

Giving tax breaks would be a good first step. It wouldn't help an individual with a chronic health issue, however.

I suppose it would not help a person who is already sick. The purpose of insurance is not to pay for future expected expenses. One gets insured against the unexpected.

If you want a plan that pays for future expected expenses then you need a different kind of plan - like a buyers club