REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

ObamaCare mandate ruled unconstitutional

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2011 18:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7351
PAGE 1 of 4

Friday, August 12, 2011 11:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.

The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/usa-healthcare-idUSN1E77B10P
20110812



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 2:28 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Well we shall see what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 2:46 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




What's wrong with forcing folks to buy a contract with a private company at gunpoint, or go directly to jail?

Never mind those 2,000 Demoratic donor corporations that got waivers.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:17 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Well we shall see what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Yep. And generally the USSC goes w/ precedent, so it's not looking too good for O-Care.

Lovin' that!


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage...


I wonder if we can use that precedent to beat the everliving shit out of the auto insurance mafia, cause oh man would THAT be a fun bit of business, man they'd be LUCKY if people stopped at tar and feathers.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:14 AM

DREAMTROVE


Frem

Unfortunately driving a car is not a right, though it could be argued to be one under the 14th amendment, freedom of movement; but also, there's a second problem: states make car insurance laws, there is no federal law requiring it. It's possible state supreme court cases could be launched on a 14th a basis though.

It would be a blow to the industry through, and possibly strengthen some other cases. I'm sick of all of these "we can't let you do that, our insurance company won't let us." sort of situations.


Rap,

Yes, I sort of figured this was coming. The mandate is blatantly unconstitutional. I despair of any court that would fail to find it so.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 2:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Well we shall see what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Yep. And generally the USSC goes w/ precedent, so it's not looking too good for O-Care.

Lovin' that!


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




The "precedent" is that the decision is now split, with as many courts finding it constitutional as not. Sometimes the SCOTUS has to flip the coin...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GOOD.

If the Supreme Court lets stand all of the other health insurance regulations, that is a good thing.

Requiring people to buy policies is the pound (or three) of flesh that Obama threw to the health insurance industry to "let" the legislation go through. It'll be interesting to see the insurances whine once they realize that morsel was just taken out of their mouths.

Which makes me think that the Supreme Court is going to let the entire legislation stand, because if there's one thing they're FOR (and believe me, it's not the Constitution!) it's big business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 9:39 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


If the mandates are the mechanism by which insurance prices would be lowered. Without them prices will continue to rise and with the the insurance companies unable to drop people costing them more money then they put in it might destroy the whole system. That would force the government to to enact universal health care.

Really all the mandates are is nothing more then a backdoor version of a single payer system.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nick

I think that was almost a perfect 180 away from my understanding of the system.

A mandate ENDS price competition, which CAUSES prices to skyrocket.


Mike,

It's blatantly unconstitutional. I can't see even anyone even moderately informed on the law considering otherwise.

What circuit court ruled in favor of it?!?

And fellow dem or not so fellow obama supporter might recall that the mandate was neither on the part platform, nor was it supported by obama when y'all voted for him, moreover, he specifically made a campaign promise of NO mandate.

You must buy a consumer product in order to live in the US

It's a 14th and 16th violation, because it interferes with the free status of us citizens, and it levies a direct tax expressly banned. It also arguably violates the first because it includes a clause recognizing some religions as exempt, but rejectkng the claims of others (for instance, mennonites are exempt, but wiccans and scientologists are not.) As all three are recognized religions in the US with objections to provisions of the bill, the law grants favoritism, ergo. Congress made a law recognizing an established religion. It's a serious breach. I'm all in favor of mennonites, but the govt. Shouldn't be encouraging me to become one. Or discouraging me from joining the CoS. This is just govt. Being way the !$&@ out of line.

Just apply some gorram reason people.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If the mandates are the mechanism by which insurance prices would be lowered. Without them prices will continue to rise and with the the insurance companies unable to drop people costing them more money then they put in it might destroy the whole system. That would force the government to to enact universal health care.

Really all the mandates are is nothing more then a backdoor version of a single payer system.

Nick, you seem to be saying...

WITH the mandates- they are just a backdoor version of single-payer

WITHOUT the mandates - the "free market" system cannot sustain itself, falls apart, and we wind up with the single-payer system.

Since it seems that either way we wind up with the single-payer system, it appears that what you are saying is the the current "free market" system is unsustainable under any circumstance without a significant gift from the government.

Perhaps I misunderstand?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:26 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think that was almost a perfect 180 away from my understanding of the system.

A mandate ENDS price competition, which CAUSES prices to skyrocket.



The mandate does not directly affect what insurance companies charge. The mandates, plus the subsidies for lower incomes, mean there will be a larger pool of people that have insurance. The more people, especially healthy people, the lower the insurance companies can go with there prices while still maintaining a profit over all. That is why large companies can get lower rates for insurance because there employees are a larger group.


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

It's blatantly unconstitutional. I can't see even anyone even moderately informed on the law considering otherwise.

What circuit court ruled in favor of it?!?

And fellow dem or not so fellow obama supporter might recall that the mandate was neither on the part platform, nor was it supported by obama when y'all voted for him, moreover, he specifically made a campaign promise of NO mandate.

You must buy a consumer product in order to live in the US



The 6th Circuit;

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-29/us/health.care.appeal_1_individual-
mandate-health-care-affordable-care-act?_s=PM:US


The argument is that health care is unique because everyone will eventually need health care.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

If the mandates are the mechanism by which insurance prices would be lowered. Without them prices will continue to rise and with the the insurance companies unable to drop people costing them more money then they put in it might destroy the whole system. That would force the government to to enact universal health care.

Really all the mandates are is nothing more then a backdoor version of a single payer system.

Nick, you seem to be saying...

WITH the mandates- they are just a backdoor version of single-payer

WITHOUT the mandates - the "free market" system cannot sustain itself, falls apart, and we wind up with the single-payer system.

Since it seems that either way we wind up with the single-payer system, it appears that what you are saying is the the current "free market" system is unsustainable under any circumstance without a significant gift from the government.

Perhaps I misunderstand?



The thing is the current system as a whole is not truly free market. Remember hospitals can turn people in need away. If those people can't pay the hospital loses money and has to make up the difference by charging the people who can pay more. That cost the insurance companies more, and you can see how the just spirals up.

The mandates are a back door single payer system. Instead of raising taxes and that money going to the government to pay everyone's insurance premiums, or direct costs, everyone pays into the system by having coverage. That should reduce the number of people who can't pay and help stem raising costs, and ideally help to lower them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Still, as I understand it, the "mandate" is nothing of the sort. You aren't required or forced to buy health insurance in order to live here. You are given tax incentives if you DO buy it.

You are also given such tax incentives if you buy a home, take out a mortgage, or have children, but I've yet to see anyone argue that you are FORCED to do these things in order to live in the U.S. (although the GOP is trying like hell on the "forcing you to have children" part. )




"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I still don't see why the government doesn't just open up its own insurance co-op. Not taxpayer-funded, but MEMBER-funded, and not for profit.

Anyone ever hear of an insurance company called "GEICO"? They used to be quite selective in their clientele - ONLY government employees and their dependents. That's where the name comes from: Government Employees Insurance COmpany.

If you can start a private insurance company that's open only to government employees (or armed service members, like USAA is), why can't you open one that's run by government employees but open to EVERYONE?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:10 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I still don't see why the government doesn't just open up its own insurance co-op. Not taxpayer-funded, but MEMBER-funded, and not for profit.



It makes sense, you just have to get it thought congress.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I still don't see why the government doesn't just open up its own insurance co-op. Not taxpayer-funded, but MEMBER-funded, and not for profit.



It makes sense, you just have to get it through congress.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




Yeah... [sigh]... Good luck with that. If the Democrats introduced a bill that acknowledged that the sun rises in the East, the tea-baggers would filibuster it and insist that there's no need for the sun to rise at all.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:23 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nick,

Thanks for the link.

That analysis seems naive to me. If you mandate, you remove negotiation, which is an invitation to pump up prices.


Mike

The mandate is required for anyone who ever once uses a hospital, which is a mandate, and of course, anyone with children, and indtroduces a direct per child tax, it's more extension of the radical eugenics platform.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:33 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick,

Thanks for the link.

That analysis seems naive to me. If you mandate, you remove negotiation, which is an invitation to pump up prices.



Your welcome!

If that was the case it would indicate that a free market system will not lower or control prices for any good or products that are necessities, each by mandate or just to live.

In the end you don't remove negotiations because you still get to pick which company you get your insurance from. So you have competition in the market.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The mandate does not directly affect what insurance companies charge. The mandates, plus the subsidies for lower incomes, mean there will be a larger pool of people that have insurance. The more people, especially healthy people, the lower the insurance companies can go with there prices while still maintaining a profit over all. That is why large companies can get lower rates for insurance because there employees are a larger group.


Invalid assumption - assumes benevolence on behalf of insurance companies, the same argument was made regarding mandated auto insurance, which is now one of the most rapacious markets on the planet, with a captive audience to boot.

No, they will *not* reduce prices, they will simply pocket more profit - kinda like them airlines did recently with the reduced tax on airfare, and when their position as a forced product solidifies first thing they'll do is collude with each other and jack the prices sky high across the board, guaranteed.

I still think we should simply nationalise it and expand the Medicare infrastructure to cover every damn body while subsidising that instead of handing out gimmies to insurance companies who've already proven more than willing to backdoor murder people by denial of care, medical neglect, and other chicanery.

We have the ability well within our means to make medical care a human right, which in any decent society I honestly think it should be, and it's one of the few uses for my tax dime I wouldn't bitch about since we'd actually get something for it, for once.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh, and speaking of your favorite topic, DT, some links for you in relation, but if yer gonna rampage about it, PLEASE create a thread for it seperately, okay ?
http://detnews.com/article/20110814/NATION/108140311/Eugenics-victim--
son-fight-together-for-justice

http://www.washingtoninformer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar
ticle&id=6557:north-carolina-urges-sterilization-victims-to-come-forward-&catid=51:national&Itemid=114


Be all their sins remembered.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:59 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Invalid assumption - assumes benevolence on behalf of insurance companies, the same argument was made regarding mandated auto insurance, which is now one of the most rapacious markets on the planet, with a captive audience to boot.


Not to captive as people always have the choice not to own a vehicle.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:No, they will *not* reduce prices, they will simply pocket more profit - kinda like them airlines did recently with the reduced tax on airfare, and when their position as a forced product solidifies first thing they'll do is collude with each other and jack the prices sky high across the board, guaranteed.


That might be true if the mandate was the only price control in health care reform. Remember insurance companies are going to be forced to spend 80% of premium costs on health care. So they only get 20% for overhead and any profits.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:I still think we should simply nationalise it and expand the Medicare infrastructure to cover every damn body while subsidising that instead of handing out gimmies to insurance companies who've already proven more than willing to backdoor murder people by denial of care, medical neglect, and other chicanery.


I agree, it is just getting that done is not easy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:We have the ability well within our means to make medical care a human right, which in any decent society I honestly think it should be, and it's one of the few uses for my tax dime I wouldn't bitch about since we'd actually get something for it, for once.


Again, no argument from me on this, but while we have the ability, we have to find the means of getting that passed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:34 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

Good points all. As to the side topic, second favorite. It actua
Ly does cross with tthe environment sommmetimes when the credits decide that the easiest way to kill the poor is to kill the earth under them, as happens in the thord world, inner cities, and lately my neck of the woods, though in my defense I was on this one before they made us a target. Thanks for the link, the specific story and related programs of southern science I actually did post a couple months ago. Expect to see much more of this in the future with the new sebelius/holdren radical agenda, but I am way busy at the moment to start another thread on the topic. Maybe when I reach a stopping point in the actual science of how to keep us alive over here I might try to tackle this one, because you *know* it's still going on. Somehow, all conspiracies are reported as having only happened in the past. This one struck me as particularly notable because it was pretty contemporary to the crime. Some forward looking on the issue of preventative parenthood merits its own thrad, but as I said, not now, I'm just way to busy. The specific carolina mengele situation was already a thread a while back, but thanks for the tip, (the problem with any agenda-laced care is consider *who* people are trusting to dliver that care and their track record on things like race relations, in public, private and "charity" sectors.)


Nick,

Frem makes me redundant here, I just wanted to add that your assumption is that insurance companies are a form of free market competition and not a headlock oligarchical cabal like OPEC.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 2:59 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem makes me redundant here, I just wanted to add that your assumption is that insurance companies are a form of free market competition and not a headlock oligarchical cabal like OPEC.



Really? How's that?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 4:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Not to captive as people always have the choice not to own a vehicle.


Yes, just like you have the "choice" to be "poor" or the "choice" to "work a job."

Look, I actually don't own a car, part because I'm batshit with panic attacks, and part because of environmental concerns, but I'm not the norm. You're acting like it's EASY to have four hour commutes on public transit, or that for the lower-middle-working class, they don't rely on their cars for their livelyhood, or that teenagers don't go into pay out the nose to get their first car, maintain it, and pay insurance. Which contributes the the restriction of upwards social mobility.

It seems harmless in practice, but seeing all my friends from highschool saddled with monstrous amounts of debt makes it much less so.

And that's the problem with a mandate on any kind of insurance. Yes, it helps the hospitals, and keeps medical costs from going up (though price negotiation with big-pharm and medical equipment companies would help even more). But the difference between your single payer system and a mandate is this: there isn't a single payer, because everyone pays, including the poor.

And I know that they talked about exceptions, but who exactly is going to be able to walk off their job for a day to fill out the forms they need and pay whatever charge they have to? The alternative is if they're below 133% of the poverty line, they can sign up for MEDICARE which has such good coverage and keeps the medicine people need affordable.

There is a tax penalty for anyone who does not get insurance.

Quote:

*Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.[54][55] Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Ac
t


I'm sorry, the health care mandate is pretty much indefensible. REMOVE it, and maybe you have a chance at saying that the new regulations will keep the insurance industry from going out of control denying claims and capping premiums and therefore actually HELPING people who are one bad accident away from financial trouble. I hope it will, even, but I'm not optimistic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:21 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:


Yes, just like you have the "choice" to be "poor" or the "choice" to "work a job."



No, not like that at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Look, I actually don't own a car, part because I'm batshit with panic attacks, and part because of environmental concerns, but I'm not the norm. You're acting like it's EASY to have four hour commutes on public transit, or that for the lower-middle-working class, they don't rely on their cars for their livelyhood, or that teenagers don't go into pay out the nose to get their first car, maintain it, and pay insurance. Which contributes the the restriction of upwards social mobility.



I'm not saying that it is easy. No matter how hard or easy it is it is still your choice.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:It seems harmless in practice, but seeing all my friends from highschool saddled with monstrous amounts of debt makes it much less so.


Again it is a choice. Plus what happens when someone without insurance hits someone else. It's fine if the at fault person has the money to pay, but if they don't who is going to pay for repairs or injuries?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And that's the problem with a mandate on any kind of insurance. Yes, it helps the hospitals, and keeps medical costs from going up (though price negotiation with big-pharm and medical equipment companies would help even more). But the difference between your single payer system and a mandate is this: there isn't a single payer, because everyone pays, including the poor.



Everyone pays in single payer also, including that poor, unless you get rid of every type of tax or fee out there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:And I know that they talked about exceptions, but who exactly is going to be able to walk off their job for a day to fill out the forms they need and pay whatever charge they have to? The alternative is if they're below 133% of the poverty line, they can sign up for MEDICARE which has such good coverage and really keeps the prices down.


The same people that fine the time to get or renew a drivers license, or file taxes. Medicare keeps prices down by mandating what it will pay for services. Not all doctors accept Medicare.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:There is a tax penalty for anyone who does not get insurance.

Quote:

*Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.[54][55] Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Ac
t


I'm sorry, the health care mandate is pretty much indefensible. REMOVE it, and maybe you have a chance at saying that the new regulations will keep the insurance industry from going out of control denying claims and capping premiums and therefore actually HELPING people who are one bad accident away from financial trouble. I hope it will, even, but I'm not optimistic.



Yes there is a penalty for people who could have afford insurance but chose not to get it. Just like we all pay for it when someone is not covered but used health care service and can't pay. Getting people insurance is helping them.

I would suggest you read the health care legislation before you judge it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

No matter how hard or easy it is it is still your choice.


I really hope you don't mean this, just like I really hope AuRaptor doesn't mean some of the stuff he says about the plight of the poor.

Quote:

Plus what happens when someone without insurance hits someone else. It's fine if the at fault person has the money to pay, but if they don't who is going to pay for repairs or injuries?


Here's something that people seem to miss. Even if a person HAS insurance, technically they still might not have the money to pay. And sometimes the INSURANCE company doesn't pay, either.

You basically still have people getting into accidents, and some people taking a hit to their living income to make amends, but now you just have a middleman that gets richer and richer off you.

Meaning: you pay more.

Quote:

Everyone pays in single payer also, including that poor, unless you get rid of every type of tax or fee out there.


Okay, that's true. But the single payer system specifically refers to the government as a single payer, and not all of government revenue is taxes.

I don't strictly have a problem with a single payer system, but I think it's incorrect to call the health care mandate any kind of approximation.

What a mandate is, I think it's a rip-off.

Quote:

Medicare keeps prices down by mandating what it will pay for services.


...What. You're using denial of payment on medicare as a valid means to keep prices down?

Quote:

Yes there is a penalty for people who could have afford insurance but chose not to get it. Just like we all pay for it when someone is not covered but used health care service and can't pay.


Afford? Do you understand how much income per year is only 133% above poverty level? It's poverty level, plus 33% of that. These people are just ROLLING in the riches.

I mean, you're arguing for a single payer system and then complaining that we all pay when people can't pay their medical bills! This shouldn't even be a thing, it's people's health and lives, and the insurance companies cost us all so much more.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm not saying that it is easy. No matter how hard or easy it is it is still your choice.
This is getting into the realm of Frem's beef about playing by THEIR rules.

Screw that. When the rules have you hog-tied and gagged, either break the rules or change the rules. He's a "break the rules" kind of person, I'm a "change the rules" kind of person, but we both agree "the rules" are unfair.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Sig, you and I may not always agree, but we're on exactly the same page here.

I think I'm going to bow out here people can explain this much better than me, and I'm having trouble processing all this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 7:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Only cause it makes no sense.
(WARNING, WARNING, imminent foaming rant, take cover, take cover!)

And yeah, in a "rules" sorta way it's a goddamn shell game, three card monte writ large, a sham and a scam.

As for "choice" - kiss my ass, one of the things that drove my impulse towards third-option thinking, trickery and (might as well admit it) downright crime was the looming debt-trap, which I didn't even have the OPTION to jump into.

"Must have car, phone", uh-huh, for jobs that wouldn't pay the phone bill and fuel, much less your goddamn car insurance when you're 17 and emancipated, in the ghetto...
Hell, I had to use a workaround in order to not have a ghetto phone number extension, if your phone exchange started with 355 or 354 you were NOT gettin hired, and that's a fact, and if you even SUGGESTED public transportation as an option the interview was as good as over on the spot, cause of a certain classism and the notorious unreliability of the baltimore public transportation infrastructure, there *is* a very serious employment stigmata attached to that, let's not pretend otherwise.

Even if a teen hasn't fled the nest yet, you still have utterly RUINOUS car insurance rates, plus maintainence on the only wreck you can afford, or your folks leftover, and that's a constant thing on an old beater, nickle and diming you to death, but even worse - you just *TRY* to get by in this world without your parents credit backing you since they're DEAD, and you got no "family" beyond the folk who just looted your pathetic inheritence in a completely legal fashion AND started seizing your paychecks entire in order to keep you under their dominion as a secondary source of income, also completely legal since one has no rights till they hit the magic number - I wound up in flight from that place with their damn cop buddies (they had social connections) all on my ass after I called them out and one of em tried to murder me, unless you have another thing to call it when a freakin green beret veteran jumps a seventeen year old kid from behind with a knife, and intent...

Yeah, just imagine my ass trying to get a rental contract, that was real fucking fun, and it took a large wad of cash garnered from mugging dope dealers changing hands to get that done, and when I tried to go legit I was losing ground despite working three jobs and busting my ass eighty some hours a week cause that fuckin car and it's goddamn insurance was eating over half my income, chomp, chomp, chomp, and for what ?
I eventually managed a side-dodge by ditching the car for a Moped since they didn't require all that bullshit, although you needed to violently and rabidly defend one if you wanted to keep it, and nowadays they've shut off that route by outlawing them in the city, since you can't have folks escaping the ghetto, oh noes..

Don't go pretending it's a choice to me, not when I know damn well the only "choice" involved is a magicians hand fake - and let's not pretend they'll actually hold to the deal when they have enough money and political support to bribe their way out of it neither - one of the things which led to the cascade failure and medical neglect which left my health so terribly shattered was Allstates failure to pay PIP coverage even though it was in downright, abject, blatant defiance of the law, and I got into a shouting match with the Maryland insurance commissioner who plainly admitted this, and then flat refused to do a goddamn thing about it, thus leading to the hospital being more than a little reluctant to do anything for me, coupled with my employers medical insurance fiasco - they were changing providers at the time and the old one dumped me while the new one refused to take me and neither one would stand by the coverage *I PAID FOR*, and medicare used the excuse that they should, and everybody pointing fingers at everyone else while the insurance companies laughed all the way to the bank and my ass found itself dumped out on the streets of baltimore in midwinter, homeless, penniless, and trying to drag around a crippled limb with a fucking hoffman apparatus (you want a picture ? cause I can damn sure provide one!) punched all through my leg like some kind of bizarre erector set torture device, which I had to wrap plastic bags around to keep the blood from dripping everywhere and freaking people out - and THEN had to fight medicare tooth and motherfucking claw for almost THREE YEARS, dying by inches and rightfully shoulda been dead ten times over with everyone helpin it along cause they felt I wasn't gonna make it anyway and it was more or less a mercy kill.

Only I didn't die, and eventually managed to lean on a Congressman and a Federal Judge, dragged them into court and pounded their ass like a san quenton newbie from a stretcher while suffering a near lethal infection and fighting off delerium.

Insurance my ass, might as well stick a gun in my face and just TAKE the fuckin money - forty one years and NOT ONE INSURANCE COMPANY has ever, ever, no matter the situation, ever held up their end of the deal in any way whatsoever, not even Medicare cause it shouldn't take a political sledgehammer to make them hold up their end of the damn deal, and it did...

Oh yeah, and my so-called prescription drug coverage ?
Despite having paid them for years, when this latest thing blew up with some kinda auto-immune thing damn near killed my ass, they dumped me the INSTANT I was hospitalized, and I wound up paying for all the meds out of pocket anyways, cause of course medicare points to them, they point to medicare, and nobody covers it while the motherfucking insurance company laughs all the way to the bank with your money - which mind you they invest some substantial part of in political and legal bribes, as well as legal staff, to ensure you AIN'T gonna make no headway takin em to court, *IF* the insurance commission or the court even takes enough pity on you to let you go through the motions!

So no - I refuse to countenance any damn gimme to the insurance companies, I've had enough of their tender mercies to know just what a suckers game that is, you pay and pay and pay and you get NOTHING for it, and the mere act of doing so also makes it damn difficult to appeal to the safety net you ALSO PAID FOR on top of it, cause they assume the insurance company will put out, yet no one will make them.

Oh yes, and my ex is also now home sick for a couple days, same thing - her insurance company changed prescription providers and they played the same game with her medication, each other pointing at the other and neither one would cover it, and her goddamn pride wouldn't let her accept me payin out of pocket for it, and now she's sick and out of work for a couple days...

And you want me to trust these fuckers ?
Over my dead body, which several times it nearly was, and let's not even go there about the one trying to RETROACTIVELY cancel coverage cause of my recent time in the hospital, something they're not quite pulling off cause *my* evil-as-hell lawyer has been all up their ass, which'd cost me deep if he didn't owe me big enough to do this on the cheap.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:06 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I would simply ask if people don't have to have auto insurance, then who pays?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:33 PM

BYTEMITE


They used to make agreements with each other, if someone didn't have the cash to pay off the damages. Pay back plans, or sometimes a work-compensation plan for the injured party. In any case, there's always going to be a risk you're going to get stiffed if something goes wrong or someone owes you no matter what precautions you take. That's life. The question is whether you want to pay into something for years, and which is more, the money you pay in, or the money you get out? If you think about it, in order for insurance companies to make a profit, the amount you pay in has to be more than you or anyone else EVER get out of it.

But, aside from that, I think the very premise of that question may be flawed, both because insurance companies deny claims, and because of the way premiums work. Who pays when people have to have an insurance policy?

Also, you're defending the insurance companies. Seriously?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:39 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


insurance companies denying just claims can be a problem. That problem absolutely should be addressed. That does not mean that drivers should not have to carry insurance. People do pay the premiums, and more often then not insurance companies do pay out.

Making deals is fine when society has some sense of responsibility. That left years ago.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Hmph. Then maybe people need a lesson in giving a damn about other people.

But myself, I actually think as bad as things look, and as callous as we've gotten towards our fellow human kind, I still think people tend to have an innate sense of honour when they see someone in trouble.

I can't imagine more than a few percent of the population might get into a car crash and not be immediately and initially concerned that the other person isn't all right. That's the first thing most people would ask, "Are you all right?" Not because of money, or legal liabilities, but because both of you just shared a dangerous experience, and when that happens, people connect.

That's human decency, right there. Don't need any insurance companies for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 4:37 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I agree with what you said, but decency is different then responsibility. Making sure someone is alright is one thing.

What happens when someone with little money get there car damaged and the person that hit them does not have the money to fix it right away, if at all? Should you have to wait until someone saves the money to get your car fixed, or replaced?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:14 PM

BYTEMITE


Decency leads to responsibility.

Quote:

Should you have to wait until someone saves the money to get your car fixed, or replaced?


In that case, they'd most likely have to wait anyway. If you don't have money, then it's really hard to pay for anything, and insurance companies know when you don't have money, and are more likely to deny you if you don't have much. Quality service has a price, and they know you can't afford a lawyer to dispute them. If they can take money from you and have the option to pay out as little as possible, that's what they're gonna do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:36 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I won't be able to finish the thread tonight, but I wanted to respond to this: "Without them prices will continue to rise ..." Do you really, REALLY think that prices are rising b/c costs are FORCING them up? Boy, are you naive. I don't have time to get out all the facts for you, but they are addressed here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 5:55 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem is really making me redundant.

Nick, don't play dumb, because no one wants to play that game, and if anyone thinks yiu actually are dumb, no one wants to llay that one either

As flr the system, here's a better idea:

Let's just have a free market economy. You get sick, you gl to the hospital. After you're healed, they send you a bill. That bill reflects actual market costs. Those costs are available to you when you go, so you know ahead of time, and they reflect the actual cost.

Then, like everything else, you can then take out a loan if you can't cover the cost.

Okay, a couple serious examples:

I went to the doctors with a bsck injury. They x-rayed my shoulder, and the doctor didn't talk to me or the PA who did talk to me. No one gets paid, because the service wasn't delivered. It's the same with anyone. The PA did her job in good faith, but she didn't see to it that the doc on duty got the informatjon she collected. She'ssupposed to meet with him, and he with her. They failed.

My mom went, breathing problems. They misdiagnosed the condition, but they used some equipment, and some hours of their time, and then they wasted three cannisters of medicine into a non-working ventilator. They then wrote her a scrip for something that half worked. It was a sucky job, but two people put two hours into it. The bill should cover their wages, and a service was done, looks like 4 woman hours work. No one should have to pay them for the wasted canisters, that's incompetence. If no one pays for incompetence, it will quickly disappear. And, a wrong diagnosis with half effective medicine should be worth a small fee. Looks like a hundred bucks or so.

My mom went again, broken collar bone, tney put it in a sling. Two people again, two hours, some medicine, tests and correct treatment. Not ideal, but functional, itshou.dbe worth more.

My sister goes for cancer treatments, the experimental drug treatment doesn't cost anything and shouldn't, but the diagnosis and brain surgery were done excellently. This was expert work, and involved a team of 6 people spending four hours, so that's worth a couple thousand by itself. The fo..ow upwork is also worth money. The week in the hospital should not have been a two thousand a night motel, however.

Also, many other doctors misdiagnosed this, and did nothing, even what they were paid to do, at a previous hospital, a doctor took an MRI, charged $1000 for it, and then never looked at it.

But the really competent hospital should be paid well.


Now, who pays?

First, some credit agency or govt. Service. Next, a loan account, set up, and paid. A responsibility battle will ensue a lot of the time.

My back injury came from me tripping on a groundhog hole and whapping my fool ass. My fault.

My mom's next visit (incorrect diag: emphysema; correct diag would ahve been asthma.) fault? No ones.

My mom's shoulder, fault is the warehouse she fell lff the walkway of. They volunteered to take responsibili without any pressure from us.

My sister's cancer, TCE contamination from her workplace. It's not clear if the workplace was contaminated by the emplpyer or the gas company, as both were using TCE in the area. This one is real grey, but I would say the employer was directly responsible, and then they could then sue the gas company if they had reason (they did. There was a spill near the site aorjnd the time) which passes the buck.


Okay, so i'm just making this system up as i go along, but you see in all of these, because there is a credit account, it's auto
Aid for at the beginning, and the who and how much is worked out later.

No one has to pay for work not done. This ks how mechanics used to work. I figure medicine is more similar to an auto mechanic than anything.

Back fo the stay in the hospital:

You have roung the clock care of a nurse 24/7, so that's $480 a night, right? No, that doesn't follow, the nurse is watching 30 patients, not just you, so that's $16.

This last little logical fallacy is exploited in education as well. You sent 45 hourse kn each of four classes is 190 hours, so $3800? No, there were other students in those classes.

This is off the cuff so i'm curious if anyone sees any potential merit in some sort of system along these lines.





That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 6:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
insurance companies denying just claims can be a problem. That problem absolutely should be addressed.


Which is where my problem with it lies - to legally mandate payin them fuckers, but do nothing about their legendary and commonplace rapacious behavior and failure to uphold their end ?
Madness.

Worse is how you wind up paying far, far more than you'll ever be covered for even IF they held up their end of the deal - I mean, if you paid the entire amount they cover AND the deductable to them over the years, you do realize every penny after that is pissed down a hole, a futile expense, right ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 7:30 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


You were gone for a while DT a chara, how is your sister? I imagine you were spending some time with her.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:09 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Decency leads to responsibility.

Quote:

Should you have to wait until someone saves the money to get your car fixed, or replaced?


In that case, they'd most likely have to wait anyway. If you don't have money, then it's really hard to pay for anything, and insurance companies know when you don't have money, and are more likely to deny you if you don't have much. Quality service has a price, and they know you can't afford a lawyer to dispute them. If they can take money from you and have the option to pay out as little as possible, that's what they're gonna do.



Your falling into the trap of thinking that insurance companies fight or deny most claims. That is not true. The vast majority of claims are paid. I've gotten claims from auto insurance paid three times. I never waited more then a week and a half.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:18 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I won't be able to finish the thread tonight, but I wanted to respond to this: "Without them prices will continue to rise ..." Do you really, REALLY think that prices are rising b/c costs are FORCING them up? Boy, are you naive. I don't have time to get out all the facts for you, but they are addressed here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande]

Cost are definatly a part of it.

http://healthbeat.areavoices.com/2010/06/14/the-burden-of-unpaid-hospi
tal-bills
/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-09-uninsured-unpaid-ho
spital-bills_n.htm


http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2011/03/11/houston-ho
spitals-unpaid-medical.html


Yes, doctors over treating patents is also part of the problem. That is of course an argument that insurance companies use to fight having to pay for tests or procedures.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem is really making me redundant.

Nick, don't play dumb, because no one wants to play that game, and if anyone thinks yiu actually are dumb, no one wants to llay that one either



Not playing dumb, nor is it a dumb question. If it was it would be easy to answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As flr the system, here's a better idea:

Let's just have a free market economy. You get sick, you gl to the hospital. After you're healed, they send you a bill. That bill reflects actual market costs. Those costs are available to you when you go, so you know ahead of time, and they reflect the actual cost.

Then, like everything else, you can then take out a loan if you can't cover the cost.



...and if you can't get a loan then what? Right now hospitals bill people. If the people don't pay they can sue them, get a judgment and then garnish wages. That is if the person makes enough money for wadges to be garnished, or that person does not file for bankruptcy.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Okay, a couple serious examples:

I went to the doctors with a bsck injury. They x-rayed my shoulder, and the doctor didn't talk to me or the PA who did talk to me. No one gets paid, because the service wasn't delivered. It's the same with anyone. The PA did her job in good faith, but she didn't see to it that the doc on duty got the informatjon she collected. She'ssupposed to meet with him, and he with her. They failed.

My mom went, breathing problems. They misdiagnosed the condition, but they used some equipment, and some hours of their time, and then they wasted three cannisters of medicine into a non-working ventilator. They then wrote her a scrip for something that half worked. It was a sucky job, but two people put two hours into it. The bill should cover their wages, and a service was done, looks like 4 woman hours work. No one should have to pay them for the wasted canisters, that's incompetence. If no one pays for incompetence, it will quickly disappear. And, a wrong diagnosis with half effective medicine should be worth a small fee. Looks like a hundred bucks or so.

My mom went again, broken collar bone, tney put it in a sling. Two people again, two hours, some medicine, tests and correct treatment. Not ideal, but functional, itshou.dbe worth more.

My sister goes for cancer treatments, the experimental drug treatment doesn't cost anything and shouldn't, but the diagnosis and brain surgery were done excellently. This was expert work, and involved a team of 6 people spending four hours, so that's worth a couple thousand by itself. The fo..ow upwork is also worth money. The week in the hospital should not have been a two thousand a night motel, however.

Also, many other doctors misdiagnosed this, and did nothing, even what they were paid to do, at a previous hospital, a doctor took an MRI, charged $1000 for it, and then never looked at it.

But the really competent hospital should be paid well.



The problem with that is medicine is not an exact science. We already have a problem with doctors not wanting to make the wrong call because of mal-practice claims.


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Now, who pays?

First, some credit agency or govt. Service. Next, a loan account, set up, and paid. A responsibility battle will ensue a lot of the time.

My back injury came from me tripping on a groundhog hole and whapping my fool ass. My fault.

My mom's next visit (incorrect diag: emphysema; correct diag would ahve been asthma.) fault? No ones.

My mom's shoulder, fault is the warehouse she fell lff the walkway of. They volunteered to take responsibili without any pressure from us.

My sister's cancer, TCE contamination from her workplace. It's not clear if the workplace was contaminated by the emplpyer or the gas company, as both were using TCE in the area. This one is real grey, but I would say the employer was directly responsible, and then they could then sue the gas company if they had reason (they did. There was a spill near the site aorjnd the time) which passes the buck.


Okay, so i'm just making this system up as i go along, but you see in all of these, because there is a credit account, it's auto
Aid for at the beginning, and the who and how much is worked out later.

No one has to pay for work not done. This ks how mechanics used to work. I figure medicine is more similar to an auto mechanic than anything.

Back fo the stay in the hospital:

You have roung the clock care of a nurse 24/7, so that's $480 a night, right? No, that doesn't follow, the nurse is watching 30 patients, not just you, so that's $16.

This last little logical fallacy is exploited in education as well. You sent 45 hourse kn each of four classes is 190 hours, so $3800? No, there were other students in those classes.

This is off the cuff so i'm curious if anyone sees any potential merit in some sort of system along these lines.



That is all well and good when the responsible party has the means to pay. That is the underlying problem.

Also your argument regarding the stay at the hospital does not take into account that there will be more then one nurse and or support staff.

The big think you have to remember is that every other full industrialized country has some type of universal health care because systems that rely on the free market fail.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:52 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
insurance companies denying just claims can be a problem. That problem absolutely should be addressed.


Which is where my problem with it lies - to legally mandate payin them fuckers, but do nothing about their legendary and commonplace rapacious behavior and failure to uphold their end ?
Madness.

Worse is how you wind up paying far, far more than you'll ever be covered for even IF they held up their end of the deal - I mean, if you paid the entire amount they cover AND the deductable to them over the years, you do realize every penny after that is pissed down a hole, a futile expense, right ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.



Not futile if you end up with massive expenses because of long term needs. Even in a Universal Health Care system many people will pay more then they ever get out of it.

....and the reform bill does take steps to keep insurance companies from cheating people, such as outlawing lifetime limits and dropping people because of preexisting conditions.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:49 AM

BYTEMITE


You're still missing one thing: If what we're proposing only works when people can pay, and that's a problem, then what you're proposing with insurance companies is the same problem, just transferred through a middle man.

I ask you this: how are predatory sub-prime mortgages and insurance similar? Both involve the assumption that people will not be able to pay for a service they need, and make a profit off of it.

With insurance, the whole thing hinges on some people buying more expensive packages so that there's enough money in the pool that those with cheaper packages get covered. And it seems to work, except, it relies 1) on forcing everyone to buy health insurance (not enough people buy higher end packages, because they don't NEED them, which is half of the reason for premium hikes, the other half is simple greed), and 2) even with the regulations, 20% of everything you put in does not go towards what you're paying for (if indeed you ever need to make a claim).

And that's assuming there aren't loopholes that allow them to never pay off, such as having MUCH better lawyers than you. Lawyers trump regulations every time, and the companies will have to be caught out on not making good on the 80% to actual claims. It ain't happening.

Therefore, 1) it's an unstable and impractical business model, even though on the surface all seems fine, and 2) it's a rip-off.

If the poor are being ripped off, then that's that much less money for them to live on. If someone who is poor gets into an accident or develops a serious medical problem, an insurance system might (not always) pay to save them, but afterward all their finances are completely wiped out. I consider quality of life (therefore livelyhood) to be on the same ground as health, so for me I consider this a failure, because the person is alive, but no longer has the means to thrive.

A much better alternative to insurance companies would be to make health care much more affordable. This is the point DT is getting at. You shouldn't be charged an arm and a leg to SAVE the arm and the leg. But for that, you'd have to take on both big pharm and insurance, because big pharm loves charging $1000 dollars for a pill that only took them $1 to research, develop, and produce, and the insurance industry relies on all that overcharging to justify their own existence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Indeed, what I call bullshit-cost.

Case in point, the wheelchair I am sitting in, cost from a medical supply company runs about $795.00 USD.
Mind you, I highly doubt that's the value actually exchanged between them and an insurance company, more like a nod and a wink and an artifically inflated price to run out your coverage faster, and they'll sure as hell charge YOU that, if they can.

With deductable and all, cost to me would STILL be over three hundred bucks, cause equipment is one of the things a lot of coverage is dickheads about, especially given my prosthetics are ONLY affordable to me cause I helped with some design work for the company that makes em, and do actual function and stress testing, cause these things on paper cost about as much as a mid-grade BMW...
EACH.

Now, same wheelchair, same make and model even, via harbor freight ? $119.00 USD and I paid less than that since I got it on sale - which is still prolly more than THEY paid for it since no doubt medical supply industries buy the damn things in bulk.

So explain to me how that "coverage" does one goddamn ounce of good to me, when I had to buy my wheelchair out of pocket, had to pay for my prescriptions out of pocket, and am currently engaged in a legal battle with em over attempted retroactive coverage denial, which if not for personal favors owed, would wind up costing me as much or more than the hospitalization ?
What did I *GET* for that money - nothing, worse than nothing cause holding up the fuckin pretense allows Medicare to dodge the bullet, eliminating me from the so-called safety net.

Just cause you have been fortunate, or lucky, doesn't mean everyone is - Byte is correct in that if an insurance company thinks you haven't the will or the means to fight back, they *will* fuck you over, in fact that's HOW they make their profit, rendering the whole thing a friggin scam in the first place.

Honestly I'd rather subsidize it all through Medicare, we ALREADY pay for that, and if we cut down the amount of funding we waste on war machine welfare we could easily afford it, and step forward from a moral perspective and hold it up as a human right, rather than a pay-for-play sham.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:42 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You're still missing one thing: If what we're proposing only works when people can pay, and that's a problem, then what you're proposing with insurance companies is the same problem, just transferred through a middle man.

That would be true until you factor in the subsities to pay for insurance and and extention of Medicare.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I ask you this: how are predatory sub-prime mortgages and insurance similar? Both involve the assumption that people will not be able to pay for a service they need, and make a profit off of it.



No, the sub-prime mortgages where issued so that they could be bundled and sold. Mortgage companies generally don't make money when they forclose.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
With insurance, the whole thing hinges on some people buying more expensive packages so that there's enough money in the pool that those with cheaper packages get covered. And it seems to work, except, it relies 1) on forcing everyone to buy health insurance (not enough people buy higher end packages, because they don't NEED them, which is half of the reason for premium hikes, the other half is simple greed), and 2) even with the regulations, 20% of everything you put in does not go towards what you're paying for (if indeed you ever need to make a claim).



This is true, and why a single payer or other unitversal health care system would be better. Of course that is not what we got, nor was it poosible to have gotten it at this point.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And that's assuming there aren't loopholes that allow them to never pay off, such as having MUCH better lawyers than you. Lawyers trump regulations every time, and the companies will have to be caught out on not making good on the 80% to actual claims. It ain't happening.



Do you have a citation for that 80% claim? I found that the rate of claims being rejected is maybe around 20%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/in-health-care-number-of_n_29
1881.html


....and some of those wil be valid.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Therefore, 1) it's an unstable and impractical business model, even though on the surface all seems fine, and 2) it's a rip-off.

If the poor are being ripped off, then that's that much less money for them to live on. If someone who is poor gets into an accident or develops a serious medical problem, an insurance system might (not always) pay to save them, but afterward all their finances are completely wiped out. I consider quality of life (therefore livelyhood) to be on the same ground as health, so for me I consider this a failure, because the person is alive, but no longer has the means to thrive.



What your discribing is what the new reforms are ment to stop. If someone has insurance that person will have to pay their premiums and any co-pays. Not the entire bill.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
A much better alternative to insurance companies would be to make health care much more affordable. This is the point DT is getting at. You shouldn't be charged an arm and a leg to SAVE the arm and the leg. But for that, you'd have to take on both big pharm and insurance, because big pharm loves charging $1000 dollars for a pill that only took them $1 to research, develop, and produce, and the insurance industry relies on all that overcharging to justify their own existence.



I agree making health care more affordable would be good.

You are starting off with at least one very wrong assumption. The cost of bringing a new drug to market is in the millions, if not the billions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:48 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Indeed, what I call bullshit-cost.

Case in point, the wheelchair I am sitting in, cost from a medical supply company runs about $795.00 USD.
Mind you, I highly doubt that's the value actually exchanged between them and an insurance company, more like a nod and a wink and an artifically inflated price to run out your coverage faster, and they'll sure as hell charge YOU that, if they can.

With deductable and all, cost to me would STILL be over three hundred bucks, cause equipment is one of the things a lot of coverage is dickheads about, especially given my prosthetics are ONLY affordable to me cause I helped with some design work for the company that makes em, and do actual function and stress testing, cause these things on paper cost about as much as a mid-grade BMW...
EACH.

Now, same wheelchair, same make and model even, via harbor freight ? $119.00 USD and I paid less than that since I got it on sale - which is still prolly more than THEY paid for it since no doubt medical supply industries buy the damn things in bulk.

So explain to me how that "coverage" does one goddamn ounce of good to me, when I had to buy my wheelchair out of pocket, had to pay for my prescriptions out of pocket, and am currently engaged in a legal battle with em over attempted retroactive coverage denial, which if not for personal favors owed, would wind up costing me as much or more than the hospitalization ?
What did I *GET* for that money - nothing, worse than nothing cause holding up the fuckin pretense allows Medicare to dodge the bullet, eliminating me from the so-called safety net.

Just cause you have been fortunate, or lucky, doesn't mean everyone is - Byte is correct in that if an insurance company thinks you haven't the will or the means to fight back, they *will* fuck you over, in fact that's HOW they make their profit, rendering the whole thing a friggin scam in the first place.

Honestly I'd rather subsidize it all through Medicare, we ALREADY pay for that, and if we cut down the amount of funding we waste on war machine welfare we could easily afford it, and step forward from a moral perspective and hold it up as a human right, rather than a pay-for-play sham.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.



...and just because you have been unlucky does not mean everyone is.

If you coverage is not paying for anything why to you maintain it?

I will say it again, universal health care would be better. We had no shot at getting it. So it was the reforms we got or nothing.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:22 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

That would be true until you factor in the subsities to pay for insurance


"Subsidies" which are subject to "involuntary termination," such as COBRA ("The COBRA premium reduction under ARRA is not available for individuals who experience involuntary terminations after May 31, 2010." http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html)

Government subsidies to make insurance plans affordable for the plan-holders really is a sure sign of a stable business model.

And

Quote:

extention of Medicare.


Which they just ****ed. They can tax insurance companies, whatever, but taxing the medical equipment and pharmaceuticals? That whole keeping the prices up to justify insurance theory I have comes to mind. And I might be wrong, but my understanding is that $200,000 yearly is in the middle class family bracket.

"Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a federal sales tax on indoor tanning services." - wikipedia

Quote:

No, the sub-prime mortgages where issued so that they could be bundled and sold. Mortgage companies generally don't make money when they forclose.


I asked how they were similar.

Quote:

Do you have a citation for that 80% claim? I found that the rate of claims being rejected is maybe around 20%.


If you want to win the argument badly enough to call into question your own credibility, who am I to stop you.

For the record, what I said was "Lawyers trump regulations every time, and the companies will have to be caught out on not making good on the 80% to actual claims."

They have to apply 80% of the money they take in to addressing claims. Sound familiar?

But if that don't work for you...

"Insurers will be required to spend 85% of large-group and 80% of small-group and individual plan premiums (with certain adjustments) on healthcare or to improve healthcare quality, or return the difference to the customer as a rebate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Ac
t


It's one of the few things I like about this bill.

Quote:

What your discribing is what the new reforms are ment to stop.


And it'll stop because they passed a LAW! What's the stem word for "Lawyer?"

They're going to be laughing at us all the way to the bank.

Quote:

You are starting off with at least one very wrong assumption. The cost of bringing a new drug to market is in the millions, if not the billions.


That's really just what they report for the federal research grants. All these guys are doing is they take an existing drug, switch out maybe an oxide group with a sulfide group, mix up a vat (or toss the gene into some bacteria), do some in house testing with volunteers while they make up stuff in fluffy research papers that make the new drug sound like a cure for cancer, then submit it to the FDA for even more soft testing. After that, they release it. If it kills a bunch of people, then they recall it. Wash, rinse, repeat. You think that really costs a million bucks?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


If you coverage is not paying for anything why to you maintain it?



Because he'd be fined up to 2,000 yearly in taxes when the ACA act takes effect, for as long as he doesn't have insurance?

Not even getting into the fact that his security team probably qualifies as a small business, meaning he has to provide insurance policies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Wed, December 11, 2024 23:52 - 11 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
Jesus christ... Can we outlaw the fuckin' drones already?
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:55 - 3 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:42 - 45 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL