Question for people who like the Obamacare mandate

[Pandora]

Check our your EOMB papers. They charge at least three times as much as they expect to get from the insurance. Were you to pay your own bills, they would be far and away higher than the insurance paid, and why? Because there is no guarantee that you'll pay at all, at least not without extensive and expensive collections, that's why. They charge because they may not collect. it is a risky investment from the point of view of the health care provider.

Since you've had surgery, you must understand just how expensive it is. Pizza fundraisers aren't going to foot the bill unless you're Herman Cain.

Foot the bill? I don't think most people who do fundraisers expect it’s going to foot the bill. Believe it or not, there are still people out there who accept help but do understand that their responsibility is just that...their responsibility. It never entered my head that a pizza fundraiser or any fundraiser for that matter would foot anyone’s bill no matter the cause... just that it would be helpful and lift some of the heavy burden.



If you to have medical needs that you could not fully afford but you could make some payments, would you hope you could get others to foot the bill in full? Or would you be happy enough to have a large portion taken care of? I think having some of that bill that you pay monthly is important.



Rush had some issue while in Hawaii that first year obama was elected. He had to get rushed to the hospital and lots of tests were done for a heart attack and eventually he was released. While in the hospital he gave them his American Express card for payment because he doesn’t have insurance (though he does cover his employees) anyways the bill showed a huge reduction for paying the bill in full without insurance and all the paperwork that includes. So I am getting mixed messages on the cost.

 

[Pandora]

your just lucky you could still even work to pay those bills. Not evryone who is sick gets so lucky. The Leading cause of Bankruptcy is Health care costs...Again you seem to think everyone just can pay anything if they want. my feancee makes 50,000+ a year...pays no rent...medical costs still eat up most of her money..and thats with Insurance...and her illness also keeps her from being promoted and could cost her her job as well.

Sorry to hear about your fiancé but no, I do not think that everyone can just pay anything if they want. I couldn't. I had to make payments and there was another time a long time ago when I was very young and did not have health insurance but my son needed a surgery and I went to the state and asked for the medical card for him for one month. At first they said no but I persuaded them to let him have it for one month. I made sure all of his medical needs were met that month and then I picked a job I didn’t really like, it was not my love or passion but it had health care coverage. Many people will not take a job they do not like for the health care; they will take a job that is their passion or take no job at all because they don’t want to work. Then complain they do not have health care.

If there is someone out there who wants health care but their job doesn’t have it. Be a school cook or janitor, both are easy to get... no experience required and both come with health care. But the problem is this... it’s not someone’s passion so instead they will do what they want and complain what they want had no health care so we the people must cover them. Ugh!

But again, I am sorry to hear about your fiancé. Though I don't think her case is the
"norm" and it doesn't seem fair to change healthcare for everyone and force everyone to be in a program.

 

[Gipper]

you sound like the republican who thinks we should pay for health care with chickens still...lets have a pizza sale for evryone without health care...

I guess 45,000a year die from not enough pizza sales.,

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

I think its funny/sad...that the so called pro life party...does not seem to care to much when the lives people who are born.

Okay. We have a number now. The study by lib professors claims 45k die per year from lack of HC insurance. This number is disputed in your article. But, lets assume for argument sake that number is correct. That means that only about 1.5% of the total population of 300 million are affected. While this small number is most unfortunate, do we completely destroy the HC system by imposing a draconian 2700 page law no one has read, enacted by one party rule, and over the wishes of the people; to cover this small number of uninsured??? (funny thing...some claim Obamacare does not even cover this small group of uninsured...CRAZY!!!)

The point is we need HC reform. We just do not want the reforms offered by the Marxist written and most unconstitutional Obamacare Law that is full of rules, regulations, and nonsense that will have horrendous consequences.

Solutions exist. But, when you have a federal government that only desires more power and wealth, Americans are forced to accept tyranny...and that means we get screwed.

 

[PLC1]

Foot the bill? I don't think most people who do fundraisers expect it’s going to foot the bill. Believe it or not, there are still people out there who accept help but do understand that their responsibility is just that...their responsibility. It never entered my head that a pizza fundraiser or any fundraiser for that matter would foot anyone’s bill no matter the cause... just that it would be helpful and lift some of the heavy burden.



If you to have medical needs that you could not fully afford but you could make some payments, would you hope you could get others to foot the bill in full? Or would you be happy enough to have a large portion taken care of? I think having some of that bill that you pay monthly is important.



Rush had some issue while in Hawaii that first year obama was elected. He had to get rushed to the hospital and lots of tests were done for a heart attack and eventually he was released. While in the hospital he gave them his American Express card for payment because he doesn’t have insurance (though he does cover his employees) anyways the bill showed a huge reduction for paying the bill in full without insurance and all the paperwork that includes. So I am getting mixed messages on the cost.

No need to get mixed messages. Just check your EOMB and see what you would pay without insurance. I've already explained why that is. Now, if you just signed a $400 million contract, like Rush, then you can afford it. If you have an ordinary income, then you can't.

 

[GenSeneca]

its curious that your article still does not address the basic issue it simply assumes states will roll over.

States would still be free to pass any regulations they like regarding insurance agencies operating within their own borders, and no doubt the worst states would see insurance providers flee those states, but the state would not be allowed to bar individuals from purchasing insurance through a provider in another state. I think it was PLC who pointed out, or it may have been in his article, that if an ins. provider wishes to sell a policy to a person in a particular state, that provider must comply with the regulations of that state.

 

[dogtowner]

States would still be free to pass any regulations they like regarding insurance agencies operating within their own borders, and no doubt the worst states would see insurance providers flee those states, but the state would not be allowed to bar individuals from purchasing insurance through a provider in another state. I think it was PLC who pointed out, or it may have been in his article, that if an ins. provider wishes to sell a policy to a person in a particular state, that provider must comply with the regulations of that state.

not only does the out of state provider have to write the policy to suit that other states requirements, it needs to obtain approval from the insurance commissioner first to be licensed to sell. do you think states will surrender this authority ? further, do you think insurers will jump at the chance to sell that they already have ? at best all this does is nothing at all that cannot be done today, at worst it produces a lawsuit from those states.

 

[GenSeneca]

this does is nothing at all that cannot be done today,

I don't know why you keep saying this, it simply isn't true. Acme Ins. Co. of Nebraska cannot offer an affordable catastrophic coverage policy (that only covers X,Y, and Z) in states like California which mandate that only the much more expensive comprehensive insurance poicies (which cover A-Z) be purchased in the state. Again, the difference is where it's purchased vs where it's sold. States would still be free to regulate the insurance companies that operated within their state but they could no longer prevent citizens of their state from purchasing out of state coverage. In order to sell their policy anywhere in the US, an insurance company would need only comply with the laws of their state, irrespective of where the policy is purchased. This is NOT something that insurance companies, or policy buyers, are allowed to do.

 

[PLC1]

I don't know why you keep saying this, it simply isn't true. Acme Ins. Co. of Nebraska cannot offer an affordable catastrophic coverage policy (that only covers X,Y, and Z) in states like California which mandate that only the much more expensive comprehensive insurance poicies (which cover A-Z) be purchased in the state. Again, the difference is where it's purchased vs where it's sold. States would still be free to regulate the insurance companies that operated within their state but they could no longer prevent citizens of their state from purchasing out of state coverage. In order to sell their policy anywhere in the US, an insurance company would need only comply with the laws of their state, irrespective of where the policy is purchased. This is NOT something that insurance companies, or policy buyers, are allowed to do.

and why would we want them to be able to ignore the regulations passed by the state?

Do you think it would be better if the federal government took over the job of regulation from the states?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't know why you keep saying this, it simply isn't true. Acme Ins. Co. of Nebraska cannot offer an affordable catastrophic coverage policy (that only covers X,Y, and Z) in states like California which mandate that only the much more expensive comprehensive insurance poicies (which cover A-Z) be purchased in the state. Again, the difference is where it's purchased vs where it's sold. States would still be free to regulate the insurance companies that operated within their state but they could no longer prevent citizens of their state from purchasing out of state coverage. In order to sell their policy anywhere in the US, an insurance company would need only comply with the laws of their state, irrespective of where the policy is purchased. This is NOT something that insurance companies, or policy buyers, are allowed to do.

I don't say that at all or at least its not my intention.

 

[dogtowner]

and why would we want them to be able to ignore the regulations passed by the state?

Do you think it would be better if the federal government took over the job of regulation from the states?

thats what Obamacare seeks to do to some extent, specifically in offering a bare bones policy which many states will not allow.

 

[GenSeneca]

and why would we want them to be able to ignore the regulations passed by the state?

I don't think you understand what it is that I wrote... Acme Ins. Co. of Nebraska would have to follow the guidelines set forth by the state of Nebraska, but only those of Nebraska, regardless of the state in which thier policies are purchased. I never suggested that AIC of Nebraska should be allowed to ignore the laws set forth by the state of Nebraska.

Do you think it would be better if the federal government took over the job of regulation from the states?

Of course not... do you? However, I do believe it's within the power of the federal government to tell the states that; while states have the authority to regulate ins. co's in their state, they do not have the authority to bar citizens of their state from purchasing out of state policies.

 

[PLC1]

I don't think you understand what it is that I wrote... Acme Ins. Co. of Nebraska would have to follow the guidelines set forth by the state of Nebraska, but only those of Nebraska, regardless of the state in which thier policies are purchased. I never suggested that AIC of Nebraska should be allowed to ignore the laws set forth by the state of Nebraska.


Of course not... do you? However, I do believe it's within the power of the federal government to tell the states that; while states have the authority to regulate ins. co's in their state, they do not have the authority to bar citizens of their state from purchasing out of state policies.

They can not bar citizens from purchasing out of state policies now. People already purchase out of state policies.

Anyway, this whole "Oh, allow competition from out of state" argument is much like the "drill baby drill" bumper sticker. It's simply a way to make people think you have a solution to the health care crisis that is sinking this nation.

 

[dogtowner]

They can not bar citizens from purchasing out of state policies now. People already purchase out of state policies.

Anyway, this whole "Oh, allow competition from out of state" argument is much like the "drill baby drill" bumper sticker. It's simply a way to make people think you have a solution to the health care crisis that is sinking this nation.

technically no, one can not independently reach out to an insurer from whereever and buy a policy more to one's liking. citizens can buy whats offered to them but out of state insurers have to be permitted to sell (effectively making them in-state insurers) and under the guidelines established. yes, its a gimmick to claim this is a cureall to the problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

They can not bar citizens from purchasing out of state policies now.

You, as a citizen of the state of California, can only purchase policies that comply with California regulations. You cannot purchase a policy that comes from a Nebraskan firm and conforms to Nebraska laws but fails to conform to Californian law.

People already purchase out of state policies.

People can purchase out of state policies so long as those policies conform to the laws of the state where they live and not just the laws of the state where they originate. I have stated several times now that the policies should only have to conform to the laws of the state where the policy originates, regardless of where the policy is sold.

Anyway, this whole "Oh, allow competition from out of state" argument is much like the "drill baby drill" bumper sticker. It's simply a way to make people think you have a solution to the health care crisis that is sinking this nation.

The only "solution" you've offered is a total federal takeover of the entire HC system in America... How's that working out in Greece?

The changes being proposed to allow out of state competition between insurance providers is only part of a free market solution for the problems we face regarding health care. Claims that we're offering it as a cure-all solution to the problem is a straw man.

 

[PLC1]

You, as a citizen of the state of California, can only purchase policies that comply with California regulations. You cannot purchase a policy that comes from a Nebraskan firm and conforms to Nebraska laws but fails to conform to Californian law.


People can purchase out of state policies so long as those policies conform to the laws of the state where they live and not just the laws of the state where they originate. I have stated several times now that the policies should only have to conform to the laws of the state where the policy originates, regardless of where the policy is sold.

The only "solution" you've offered is a total federal takeover of the entire HC system in America... How's that working out in Greece?

The changes being proposed to allow out of state competition between insurance providers is only part of a free market solution for the problems we face regarding health care. Claims that we're offering it as a cure-all solution to the problem is a straw man.

Correct on the fact that anyone selling insurance in the state of California has to comply with California state regulations. Correct also that the "if only insurance companies could compete across state lines" mantra is a gimmick.

Now, let's see if there is a way we can solve this problem short of a " total federal takeover of the entire HC system in America." I'm pretty sure that we're in agreement that wouldn't work.

Let's issue everyone a medical care MasterCard. Only medical services could be charged on it, and the holder would be responsible for paying it. The bank issuing the card would be responsible for collections, and could charge interest just like on a current card. The bank, since they would be taking a risk issuing cards to people with questionable credit, would be allowed to attach wages and whatever other income the recipient might have, including welfare.

Once the holder had charged more than 8% of his annual income on the card in any given year, he/she could bill the federal government for the remainder.

No one would be forced to go into medical bankruptcy.
Everyone could choose whatever health care provider they wanted.
The individual would have the responsibility to shop around for prices.
No medical provider would have to have a billing department.
Overhead would be zero.
Everyone would have insurance.
Everyone would have to pay something.

I think costs would be a lot less under such a system. It would be much more efficient. The government wouldn't be running health care. It's a perfect partnership between the public and private sectors.

There it is, and it doesn't have to occupy 2,000 pages of text.