Page 8 of 122 FirstFirst ... 6789101858108 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #71
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Absolutely true .. for now.

    We all know what the Obamacare goal is, though: socialized medicine, with Fed Cross as the single-payer.

    Best to push the camel's nose out from under the tent now .. or the rest is sure to follow later.

    Indeed, if the individual mandate falls .. the camel may be humped!
    if the individual mandate fails, we take a step closer to UHC, as we should have in the first place. if mandating individual participation in the private health insurance market due to the inevitability of eventual need is found to fall outside of the commerce clause, an expansion of medicare to address the same problem won't be.

    the mandate is among the last, best hopes of prolonging our inefficient, employer-based, for-profit health insurance boondoggle. that's probably why Republican think tanks backed it before Obama entered the equation.

  2. #72
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Without the individual mandate, all we (mostly) do is just add another medical insurance carrier to the list, a government-run medical insurance carrier.
    Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

    In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

    The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

    The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #73
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    if the individual mandate fails, we take a step closer to UHC, as we should have in the first place. if mandating individual participation in the private health insurance market due to the inevitability of eventual need is found to fall outside of the commerce clause, an expansion of medicare to address the same problem won't be.

    the mandate is among the last, best hopes of prolonging our inefficient, employer-based, for-profit health insurance boondoggle. that's probably why Republican think tanks backed it before Obama entered the equation.
    Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.

    Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

    What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

    The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

    This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #74
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

    In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

    The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

    The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
    Bingo. The idea behind the mandate is not to force people to buy insurance if they don't want to. The idea is that you can't outlaw denial for preexisting conditions without doing something to prevent abuse. If people don't have to buy insurance, and an insurer can't deny people for preexisting conditions, many people would simply not buy insurance UNTIL they got sick. In other words, they would free ride on everyone else, driving up costs for those who have some semblance of moral fiber.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

    In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.
    there are some exceptions.

    my group plan contains a "pre-existing condition limitation" clause. that means that if i am currently being treated for a condition that i was being treated for six months prior to employment, my coverage could be denied for up to 12 months. they waive this limitation if i seamlessly maintained health insurance coverage immediately prior to my current employment.

    luckily for me, i did. those who didn't or couldn't are pretty much screwed for a year.

    i suspect that such limitations might be able to be inserted into plans even now, so the pre-existing condition portion of the law might have some loopholes.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

    In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

    The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

    The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
    Insurance carriers have already warned that premiums will skyrocket if the pre-existing conditions part in any way remains, about which the individual mandate is really powerless to offset.

    All of the Obamacare nightmare tenets do not counterbalance the pre-existing condition value, a value which should have been a separate non-pork issue on its own, complete with associated cost-rise protection.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.
    it would be best to remove employers entirely from providing health insurance. switching plans every time someone changes jobs is utter lunacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

    What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

    The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

    This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
    i agree about the cost issue; this is something that we really need to control, as rising costs have become unsustainable. my own opinion is that this would be best addressed by increasing the supply of health care professionals and consolidating a larger portion of the customer base into a not-for-profit system such as single payer. that entity would have much more leverage to set reimbursement rates, and an increase in the number of doctors (which is artificially limited currently) would help to promote competition.

  8. #78
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.

    Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

    What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

    The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

    This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
    What we should have is a system like they have in France. Single payer, with private doctors and hospitals. The cost of every procedure is set by the government and it's all available to consumers -- like a restaurant menu -- so they know exactly what's being paid. In addition, they *feel* the cost insofar as they pay their bills out of pocket, and are then reimbursed by the government. Some elective procedures, or others deemed ineffective or cost prohibitive, are not covered. If people want to they can purchase private insurance to cover those cases.

    There is no other way to control doctor, hospital, and prescription prices. Medical care simply is not a free market. The costs are too opaque and the cost/benefit of any particular treatment is too complicated for most people to figure out. The employer-provided insurance system makes that much worse as most people pay less than half of their insurance cost directly, and the deductions businesses get hides a half-trillion-dollar annual government expense.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #79
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Something else that drives me crazy:

    As an individual, I can only deduct medical expenses from my income if they exceed 7% of my gross income. I pay $650 a month for my health insurance and likely spend my deductible each year which is $5,200 annually. That's $13,000 a year for health insurance. That's a lot of money. I should be able to deduct every penny of that from my gross income.

    Why should I be able to do this? Because someone who works for a company and has group insurance gets that benefit tax-free. IOW, if the employer pays $400 a month towards an employee's health insurance, the employee is receiving $4,800 a year tax-free.

    It's not fair, I tell ya'!!!!
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  10. #80
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Something else that drives me crazy:

    As an individual, I can only deduct medical expenses from my income if they exceed 7% of my gross income. I pay $650 a month for my health insurance and likely spend my deductible each year which is $5,200 annually. That's $13,000 a year for health insurance. That's a lot of money. I should be able to deduct every penny of that from my gross income.

    Why should I be able to do this? Because someone who works for a company and has group insurance gets that benefit tax-free. IOW, if the employer pays $400 a month towards an employee's health insurance, the employee is receiving $4,800 a year tax-free.

    It's not fair, I tell ya'!!!!
    I hear you. As a business owner (private contractor), at least I'm allowed to reduce my AGI by a good chunk of the cost of my health insurance that I buy on my own.

    Sadly, however, I still have to pay FICA, and the private insurance costs rose dramatically after I reached a "significant" birthday .. to the point where, despite my great health that should make it more affordable, I still could no longer afford healthcare insurance, which I subsequently cancelled.

    So now, quite frankie, I'm operating without annette .. and that's a whole lot scarier than the thought of watching those old beach blanket reruns.

    If the individual mandate would fairly allow me to procure both adequate and affordable healthcare, I might not be so hard on it.

    But there is no healthcare insurance equivalent to cheap state-mandated minimum auto insurance that would be of any real value even catastrophically.

    Thus whatever I would be mandated to carry, I like wouldn't be able to afford it either "at my age" (I really hate that phrase ...).
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

Page 8 of 122 FirstFirst ... 6789101858108 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •