It is currently 03/29/24 12:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 72 posts ]
Author Message
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:51 am • # 51 
I'm curious about your answer to Kathy's first question, gop ~ do Rs [generally] see health care as a privilege? ~ do you?

I don't think Republicans see it as a "privilege." It's a necessity, and people have a right to healthcare, but that doesn't automatically make it a government responsibility to provide it to everyone.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:52 am • # 52 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
One other general opposition to the bill is that it is seen among Democrats at this point as just the door-opener to their goal of a government-run universal heathcare system. Since that runs counter to the general Republican philosophy of limited government, that alone encourages opposition.

Ideology trumping public need? ~ I truly believe the Rs greatly [and rightfully] fear the popularity of significant health care reform on the D watch ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:54 am • # 53 
the Rs are far more willing to fund war than to fund health care

That's a nice Democratic party propaganda line, but it's not true. Republicans consistently vote for budgets and bills that spend abot a trillion dollars per year of taxpayer money on healthcare, and about another 1.5 trillion dollars per year on other social services programs.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:56 am • # 54 
sooz08 wrote:
gopqed wrote:
One other general opposition to the bill is that it is seen among Democrats at this point as just the door-opener to their goal of a government-run universal heathcare system. Since that runs counter to the general Republican philosophy of limited government, that alone encourages opposition.

Ideology trumping public need? ~ I truly believe the Rs greatly [and rightfully] fear the popularity of significant health care reform on the D watch ~

Sooz


The public "need" is better served by a non-government-run health insurance system. Public healhtcare isn't the only way to meet public needs. Government services aren't the only way to meet public needs.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 4:59 am • # 55 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
[i]Ahh yes! Tort reform and selling insurance across state lines. The magic GOP solution after decades of not touching health care.
The acronym for the GOP plan is NO.

[/i] The interesting thing about the Republican position is that it gives them the opportunity to claim they want health care reform but the two issues they have picked as their standard bearers are issues they, as federal representatives, have no power over. Both tort reform and regulation of the insurance industry fall under State control. In any event, neither would have much impact on costs or availability of insurance.

Tort reform, in States where it has been enacted, has not had any appreciable impact on insurance costs It can't, since even if the doctor is guilty of malpractice he still gets paid by the insurance company for whatever services he provided. Tort reform would only apply to doctors' malpractice insurance. Tort reform might put more money in doctors' and malpractice insurance companies' pockets but would affect health care insurance.

As for selling across State lines, while it might lower the costs in high priced states it would do so by raising the costs in lower cost states. The thinking seems to be that if insurance is cheaper in Wisconsin than in Florida, people in Florida should be able to buy their insurance from Wisconsin. The trouble with that is that insurance costs in Wisconsin are based on the insurance company's experience in Wisconsin. If the experience in Florida is worse and the Wisconsin insurers have to provide them insurance they will simply factor the Florida experience into the rates they charge the people in Wisconsin.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 5:05 am • # 56 
Health insurance costs are going to rise for many people under the Democratic plans that have passed the House and Senate, too. That's the cost of forcing the insuring of people who are currently unable to gain insurance coverage because of pre-existing and chronic conditions. Younger and healthier people will see their premiums rise.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 5:24 am • # 57 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Absolutely true about tort reform, jim ~ some see the mega $$$ malpractice awards as playing a large role in insurance costs, which is simply NOT true ~ the mega $$$ awards are very few and very far between ~ and are to ease the life-altering errors by some docs ~

True too about buying/selling insurance across state lines ~ and adds a whole new wrinkle since insurance IS state-regulated ~ and regulation often differs significantly from state to state ~

Also absolutely true about "experience ratings" ~ and we canNOT and should NOT ignore the profit motive that many insurance companies embrace ~ both of those elements are exactly why so many of today's insurance companies are so quick to deny coverage to some and to deny expensive claims ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 5:34 am • # 58 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
Health insurance costs are going to rise for many people under the Democratic plans that have passed the House and Senate, too. That's the cost of forcing the insuring of people who are currently unable to gain insurance coverage because of pre-existing and chronic conditions. Younger and healthier people will see their premiums rise.

gop, I [and my firm] paid significant premiums during my whole career ~ having been blessed with good health and having insurance that includes preventive care, my claims have been negligible, especially when compared against the cost ~ so younger and/or healthier people have always paid for those with health problems ~ and we've all paid for insurance company executive mega perks and company retreats, etc ~ to me, refusing to insure anyone for any reason elevates health care insurance to a privilege vs a right ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 5:56 am • # 59 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
gopqed wrote:
Health insurance costs are going to rise for many people under the Democratic plans that have passed the House and Senate, too. That's the cost of forcing the insuring of people who are currently unable to gain insurance coverage because of pre-existing and chronic conditions. Younger and healthier people will see their premiums rise.
That's true, Gop, but the difference between the two plans is that people who cannot now get coverage will be able to obtain it. The Republican tinkering wouldn't do anything to fix that problem. I'm really not all that crazy about the curren plan working it's way through Congress. It does make coverage more available but does nothing to attack the huge administration costs inherent in yor patchwork system nor does it address the problem of people facing bankruptcy or minimal, if any, care when they find themselves with dire health problems. Only a single payer universal system would address either of those issues.

That younger, healthier people will see their premiums rise is sort of a non-starter for me. Sure they get away with paying low premiums now but any benefit to that is lost when they reach the age where they are not so young and healthy anymore and their premiums skyrocket othey find themselves ble to get adequate insurance.

I am really surprised that Americans don't see the benefits of a universal system. Health care is something everyone needs at some point and providing it efficiently for everyone should be a top priority. The system you have now isn't a whole lot different than having only people who call the police paying for the police or only those who have kids in school paying for educational facilities.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:15 am • # 60 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Republicans see the need for reform and there are even areas where there is common ground with the Democrats.

yes. they want to see all of the uninsured go to private carriers. that will be really good for insurance companies.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:17 am • # 61 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
Health insurance costs are going to rise for many people under the Democratic plans that have passed the House and Senate, too. That's the cost of forcing the insuring of people who are currently unable to gain insurance coverage because of pre-existing and chronic conditions. Younger and healthier people will see their premiums rise.

how do you figure? younger and healthier people are the vast majority of the uninsured, gop.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:19 am • # 62 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Government services aren't the only way to meet public needs.

nice red herring. nobody said that it was the ONLY way. but if it is a viable option, i see no reason that it should not be explored, given that the cost of such a system is substantially lower than private coverage.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:20 am • # 63 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I am really surprised that Americans don't see the benefits of a universal system.

they DO, jim. that is why the support for the proposed system is less than 50%


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:23 am • # 64 
I didn't even know to reply to that one.

The private services have always been out there and unaffordable or unavailable to those 30Million who will be coveraged under this bill. Without some sort of government intervention they would still be unaffordable or unavailable to those in need.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:24 am • # 65 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
kathyk1024 wrote:
I didn't even know to reply to that one.

The private services have always been out there and unaffordable or unavailable to those 30Million who will be coveraged under this bill. Without some sort of government intervention they would still be unaffordable or unavailable to those in need.
forcing people into private coverage, and penalizing them if they don't take it, seems like more of a cruel hoax than "reform".


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 6:36 am • # 66 
macroscopic wrote:
I am really surprised that Americans don't see the benefits of a universal system.

they DO, jim. that is why the support for the proposed system is less than 50%
I don't agree with that one. Very few people out there know what the proposed system is. They have been tossing around terms that very few in the public know the definition of. The public also does not know the process of how a bill becomes a law and all the committees involved.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 8:23 am • # 67 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
kathyk1024 wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
I am really surprised that Americans don't see the benefits of a universal system.

they DO, jim. that is why the support for the proposed system is less than 50%
I don't agree with that one. Very few people out there know what the proposed system is. They have been tossing around terms that very few in the public know the definition of. The public also does not know the process of how a bill becomes a law and all the committees involved.

alright- i will conceed that one.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 2:36 pm • # 68 
macroscopic wrote:
Government services aren't the only way to meet public needs.

nice red herring. nobody said that it was the ONLY way. but if it is a viable option, i see no reason that it should not be explored, given that the cost of such a system is substantially lower than private coverage.


sooz drew a distinction between "ideology and public need" when I talked about a general government-run healthcare system not being a proper role for government, implying that a government system was required to meet the public need.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 2:40 pm • # 69 
macroscopic wrote:
gopqed wrote:
Health insurance costs are going to rise for many people under the Democratic plans that have passed the House and Senate, too. That's the cost of forcing the insuring of people who are currently unable to gain insurance coverage because of pre-existing and chronic conditions. Younger and healthier people will see their premiums rise.

how do you figure? younger and healthier people are the vast majority of the uninsured, gop.


I was talking about the cost of insuring people with pre-existing and chronic conditions, which are much more expensive from a healthcare cost standpoint. To provide health insurance at a reasonable cost for the high-cost people, people who can currently get (if they choose to do so) health insurance at a lower cost because they are healthy will see the health insurance premiums they pay (or could pay if they were to choose to obtain it) rise.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/09 2:45 pm • # 70 
kathyk1024 wrote:
I didn't even know to reply to that one.

The private services have always been out there and unaffordable or unavailable to those 30Million who will be coveraged under this bill. Without some sort of government intervention they would still be unaffordable or unavailable to those in need.

That's where the prohibition on exclusions for pre-existing conditions and subsidies to help people obtain health insurance come in. Government-run health insurance isn't necessary if the program is structured properly.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 9:37 pm • # 71 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
Government services aren't the only way to meet public needs.

nice red herring. nobody said that it was the ONLY way. but if it is a viable option, i see no reason that it should not be explored, given that the cost of such a system is substantially lower than private coverage.


sooz drew a distinction between "ideology and public need" when I talked about a general government-run healthcare system not being a proper role for government, implying that a government system was required to meet the public need.

well, we can point to several institutions where government IS required to meet a public need- at least according to most people. one is common defense. i personally have some disagreement with that, but it is widely argued that it belongs on the list. another is basic interstate infrastructure/coordination. it is argued occasionally that both of these large scale projects should be privatized. do you agree?

it has also been argued, since Truman at least, and arguably since Roosevelt, that healthcare is another such large scale project. the reasoning is that everybody needs it, and that profit, marketing, ass covering, monopolization pricing, and most of all CONFLICT OF INTEREST prevent private carriers from doing the best possible job.

furthermore, from a business perspective, having to compete in the global marketplace which includes companies delivering medical care to their employees for HALF the cost is a definite disadvantage. especially as medical costs become a SIGNIFICANT factor in employment costs. so ironically, it should be capitalists like me that are arguing most vociferously FOR single payer, in that it has been PROVEN to drive costs down. this fact is so widely accepted that it is only argued on the lunatic fringes like the Von Mises weirdos.

to be succinct, EITHER this is a project worthy of national presence OR it is a matter of strategic business importance. by either standard, it diserves PUBLIC attention.


Last edited by macroscopic on 12/29/09 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/09 9:41 pm • # 72 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I was talking about the cost of insuring people with pre-existing and chronic conditions, which are much more expensive from a healthcare cost standpoint.

i know what you were talking about. let's say that the PEC crowd is 10% of the uninsured market (it may be more or less, i don't know). let's say it costs 5x as much as the average customer in that field. now, let's say that 90% of the market is completely healthy young peeps, costing 1/4 the average:

p* = 0.25p*0.9 + 5p*0.1 = 0.725p

in other words, in this scenario, it would cost 28% LESS to insure this "group" than average. disclaimer: this example is for illustration purposes only, but if true- would mean that including the uninsured in the pool would REDUCE costs for insurance carriers, not increase them.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 72 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.