CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 31
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 29
Total: 29

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

I am changing my mind on health care reform.  

I just saw a report on Fox News that said the feds are considering jacking the premium rates for young people (up to $3000, and since they don't use the system as much, they are needed to cover the old people who will massively 'use' the system).

This will accomplish two things (not mentioned in the report):

1) it will outright penalize the mind-numbed, public school indoctrinated, kool-aid drinkers who voted for the Teleprompter In Chief and
2) it should give them a taste of what they are REALLY in for when it comes to paying for ALL of the other entitlement programs.

Consider it an 'education' program (which some people on this site call an "investment").

1) Why is a single payer system better than slowly getting rid of health insurance and treating it like any other good/service where the customer would do good diligence in comparing costs and services?


You still need insurance.

Some people are born with severe and costly medical problems.
Lots of younger healthy people would be well-off with a health savings account and insurance to cover everything they can't pay for from that account.

The problem is funding that health savings account. A large percentage of workers can't afford it and so they would be without any health care because they cannot afford to set asside a portion of their income to pay for health care.

Unless the government funds that bottom 30% or so of workers, as well as those unable or too old to work.

Which way you go depends on your basic instincts about ethics.

Some people, like you for instance, seem to be fine with the idea that there will be random winners and losers.
If you're healthy you can pay for the little bit of health care expenses you'll acrue.

If you're unlucky and unhealty you'll lose everything except accumulated debt until you can't get medical care anymore. Then you die.


2) In the current 3rd-payer system (same as single payer), decisions are not made based upon cost.

Cost is certainly part of every decision and for a large proportion it is the deciding factor.

Lots of people, with insurance, cannot afford their copays for doctor visits or for medications.
The result: they don't get proper healthcare. They die.


3) The payer pays whatever is charged and passes the cost on to the insured/taxpayer in the form of a premium once/year.

You're ignoring the co-pays which can total thousands of dollars/year.

TonyBlair:


I just saw a report on Fox News that said the feds are considering jacking the premium rates for young people (up to $3000, and since they don't use the system as much, they are needed to cover the old people to will massively 'use' the system).


Forget about Death Panels -- that's too expensive -- They don't need counseling if they don't have a choice. -- They should just die or kill themselves and save the rest of us a ton of money.


What do you figure?  Maybe 5% of people over age 65 would be able to afford health health care?

By the way, I'm one of those people you think is dumb because I have a public education. Sorry, but I smart enough to choose to be born into a family that could afford private schools.

and of course FoxNews is a reliable source of information.  This item was probably reported by an out of breath, buggy eyed reporter in a shrill and outraged voice.

Actually, the young would be paying for the care their parents and grandparents receive.  The alternative is to let the old people die.  Talk about rationing.  The young will eventually get old and suffer from old timers maladies.

The Shadow would support a plan that allows the young not pay BUT when they get sick (as they will) they will not have the opportunity to opt into a program where pre-existing conditions are not a reason for refusal.  The Shadow would consider a grace period (maybe two years) after which the premium would increase by 10% per year followed with coverage denial after 8 years of not paying.  Pretty much like a term life insurance policy. 


The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men 

[Preventive Care]

Preventive Care

he passage of an amendment requiring “preventive care” for women in the Senate’s proposed health care bill could provide a backdoor to make abortion coverage mandatory, pro-life advocates warn. The Mikulski Amendment, passed on Thursday by a vote of 61-39, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide coverage for “preventive care” for women and bars them from imposing cost sharing requirements on such care.

Under the amendment, “preventive care” would be defined by the comprehensive guidelines of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

The National Right to Life Committee has reported that some pro-abortion advocates consider abortion to be “preventive” health care.

It said the National Abortion Federation co-sponsored a 2009 publication titled “Providing Abortion Care” which explicitly stated that advance practice clinicians are “especially well positioned within the health care system to address women’s need for comprehensive primary preventive health care that includes abortion care.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17939

A Year of Magical Thinking

Democrats have spent 2009 in a dream state, and it's time they wake up. They're convinced that they can subsidize health insurance for millions of people while also "bending the cost curve" of health care spending. They want to sign us up for the political equivalent of one of those three-step "eat more to lose weight" diets. Step one: Pile on the expenditures, regulations, taxes, and fees. Step two: Close your eyes. Step three: Pray it all works out in the end.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/267aexag.asp

"Pray it all works out in the end" 

Don't you believe in the power of prayer?

The Shadow

Not when the prayer request is denying the existence of UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.

Now, now aren't you limiting the answers to pryers to those things you believe/don't believe in?  Aren't you substituting your will for the Divine will?

The Shadow wonders

I have a question.

According to Dick Morris, I can decide I don't want insurance and pay a fine of $750. According to the legislation, the insurance company must accept me regardless of any preexisting condition.

I'm currently paying a lot more than $750 for insurance, so here is my question.

Why wouldn't I simply pay the fine and get insurance if I get sick? Why would I pay thousands in premiums if I can just get the insurance if I look like I'm going to have big bills.

I'm not looking for an ideological fight here - I just don't understand why anyone would ever buy insurance again, so I must be missing something obvious.

Marc I know you asked what is a good question so that I might clarify it for you   .

Let us suppose that you pay the $ 750 and don't buy insurance.

Depending on your age you run the risk of a heart attack/stroke etc.  No insurance:  ambulance transportation, ER, scans etc. etc.  You can insure after the heart attack is resolved but in the meantime your bill is around $ 100-120K depending on where you live.  The same goes for the first visit (diagnostic and treatment) for cancer etc.   You do not have a pre-existing condition until it is diagnosed. 

Now, if you are young and invincible, you might break a leg, be in an accident, need kidney stone treatment, have appendicitis or any other acute/ urgent episode.  But even if you just have a severe cold, the unsubsidized visit to a doctor is close to $150 and I hope that the regulations will specify that there is no subsidy for those who chose to pay the fine and not the insurance.  It is unlikely that young and invincibles would not buy insurance once they start having families. 

If you are wealthy and can afford to self insure for the thousands required to take care of acute/urgent episodes you might chose to do so. If, on the other hand you are just beyond the point where there is insurance subsidy then, a single event can be fiscally devastating. 

Like all insurances it is a matter of probabilities and risk tolerance

BTW I think that the $ 750 from the young invincibles (mostly males) who are unlikely to use the system (women start  to use it earlier or at least should for the appropriate screenings) would be sufficient to cover the increased expense incurred to cover the "unwillingly" uninsured

The Shadow

You might have the point with the heart attack but generally, there is at least a day or two between the diagnosis of a critical condition and its treatment.

I wonder if a cottage industry might get set up to "insure" the otherwise uninsured against such catastrophic conditions. In other words, for $200/year, I will pay the bills and handle getting you signed up in the event of a sudden medical condition where getting insurance is not practical.

I find the whole thing baffling. Since insurance is designed to mitigate the risk of an unforseen situation, the requirement to pay the bills of someone whose expense can be predicted is no longer "insurance". I'm not sure what you would call it - charity, maybe but not insurance..

If we are going to require health care providers to render care to anyone who comes in the door, then it is necessary to make health insurance mandatory (or some kind of letter of credit from a bank stating your ability to self-insure).

There are so few citizens who can afford to self-insure against catastrophic illness it is not worth discussing.

The question is if the $200 premium for "catastrophic" illness coverage would be sufficient.  It all depends on many considerations.  But it is not catastrophic illness/accident that is likely to affect the invincible young.  It is the costly but merely inconvenient event.  A broken leg, a bad cold, an STD infection   and so on.  These if unsubsidized would easily take a big chunk out of the savings.

As an example.  Starting age 25 (before that on parent's insurance)  20 years of paying $ 750 fines =$15000 saved (add the value of time if you wish and deduct cost of acute but no serious illness) now 45 start to have problems requiring more testing, screening.   Perhaps now time to buy insurance.  All depends on whether there will be an age dependent rating for those first buying insurance at this age.  I don't know if the prohibition against denying for pre-existing conditions will also cover age rating.

Marc:  I am sure that you know that all insurance is predicated on the fact that some will "pay" the bills of others with the expectation that their own bills would be paid if the need arises.  Not charity... just mutual risk mitigation.


Well anyway. again the question is probability and risk tolerance.

The Shadow

A solution to reduce costs would be to break up the grip doctors have on the system.  Just like other areas, a M.D. is not needed to treat a sore throat.  Sadly, 3rd world countries have figured this out.  You can easily go to local medical clinics for routine procedures at fractions of the cost.

A larger solution would be to get rid of the 3rd payer system.  This would empower and dignify the individual, just like privatizing Social Security.  They key difference is that it would require people to be more pro-active. You would need to be more financially responsible.  You would need to determine what services are desired and when. You would have to shop around for the best bang for your buck. 

Obviously, just like Social Security, a separate system would be needed for retirees or soon-to-be retirees who have relied upon the current system.  Where car insurance is mandated due to the risk to others, hospitals could force someone to pay in advance for non-emergency procedures.  Emergency procedures would be billed or sent to collections/court, if necessary, but again, this would require someone to make some of these decisions in advance in the event that something does happen.