Page 30 of 37 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 367

Thread: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

  1. #291
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    It was tough to try and wade through all 29 pages. The title of course is a CON lie. The CEO of FL. Blue was on a Sunday morning squabble show to knock down the CON game being run by the TPs. No one's policy was cut, the policies that don't meet the new standards are being converting to one of several that do meet the new standards.

    The CONs are trying to make far more of this than is the truth. This is like a state requiring all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage. The CON lie would be to claim all the driver's without the coverage already part of their policy are going to have their insurance cut.

    That someone in Canada is using 500 dollars worth of insulin, syringes, test strips a month is rather meaningless. For one this person must be using the designer forms of insulin such as humalog and the disease is out of control. Back when I volunteered in the Eldercare program a big issue was the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The same drug was far cheaper in Canada, where the government bargains with Big Pharma on price (something Congress was forbidding our taxpayer supported programs from doing). The average cost for most of the diabetics was 100 to 200 bucks.

    One dirty little secret those who decry the Canadian system and point to those 'fleeing' their wait lists is the fact far more Americans are 'fleeing' our high costs for other countries' far cheaper medical costs. New Zealand promotes the fact their operations generally run 15-20% the cost of an American one. In 2000 Blue Cross of California certified 3 Mexican hospitals for Americans to use. Companion Global Healthcare of S. Carolina in 2007 used medical facilities in Thailand, Singapore, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, and India. A kidney transplant in Taiwan is $91,000- in the USA $300,000.

    McKinsey and Co. researched the medical tourist traffic and estimated in 2008 85,000 people came to America for treatment while in 2007 over 750,000 Americans went out of country for medical treatment. American retirees routinely cross the Mexican border for medicine, dental, and minor surgeries such as lap band.

    According to the OECD report of 2008 the per capita spending on drugs was $897 in the States and the average for the industrialized countries was $461.
    What you've just proven is that the major issue with American healthcare prior to Obamacare was the costs associated with the delivery of the product, not the product itself, and Obamacare did virtually nothing to reduce those costs and in fact has exacerbated those costs going forward.

    You champion Americans going elsewhere for inferior care due to costs, while I champion Canadians going to America for superior care. Sure, you can get a cheaper kidney transplant in Taiwan and other Asian countries - could be because in some they harvest kidneys from unwilling or unknowing donors. You can get a cheaper operation in Costa Rica, but try filing a civil lawsuit there if something goes wrong. Instead of cheering on California health insurance providers sanctioning care in Mexico, you should be livid that the same care costs too much in California and probably because of all the frivilous lawsuits and extra tests and the extra malpractice insurance providers in California need to have and pay for in order to survive.
    Last edited by CanadaJohn; 10-30-13 at 11:29 AM.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #292
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,127

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I would simply add that, like most things in life, not all the people can afford to enjoy the very best of everything or anything. I'd say Canada benefits from the American system of healthcare because your profit driven, business modeled delivery provides us access to treatments we don't get here at all or in a timely manner. When a person can work hard and have their labors properly compensated, they tend to be more productive and more innovative. That's not to say Canada doesn't have some top notch services and service providers just that a lot of research and development dollars go to America where efforts are justly rewarded.

    I believe strongly that all Americans should have healthcare insurance that protects them against catastrophic illnesses/accidents similar to what Canadians enjoy. I never have to worry that having a heart attack is going to cost me and my family out home or our savings. I only have to worry about getting well again. There are two, significant, problems with Obamacare, among many, that I can see - firstly, it requires you to purchase a product you should not be forced to buy and secondly, it demands that that product contain a menu of services/products that many who would buy don't want to buy and thus makes the basics more expensive than the penalty.

    I don't know how you get out of the Obamacare mess - it is a mess, no doubt - and in your political climate, I see it simply as a cudgel with which to beat the other side, depending on your ideological views and having the most inflexible, egotistical, arrogant President in recent memory is not going to help and just leads reform leaderless. Perhaps, after 4 years or so of disaster, a new President in 2016 will come in and have the political mandate to change it.
    I agree that Obamacare was a dumb idea; conceived by the Heritage Foundation, articulated by Sens Hatch/Caffee and Nickles (all R); beta tested under the leadership by a Massachusetts Republican governor (where it enjoys 63% popularity) and now taken national because Obama and Dems lacked the political will or guts to do the right thing and introduce UHC as Medicare part E...... its a bastardized system that relies much too much on private insurance... but it was probably the only thing that was remotely politically viable.

    http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

    It is what it is. I don't like it, but its ours, so I will do my best to embrace it.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 10-30-13 at 11:38 AM.

  3. #293
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    What you've just proven is that the major issue with American healthcare prior to Obamacare was the costs associated with the delivery of the product, not the product itself, and Obamacare did virtually nothing to reduce those costs and in fact has exacerbated those costs going forward.

    You champion Americans going elsewhere for inferior care due to costs, while I champion Canadians going to America for superior care. Sure, you can get a cheaper kidney transplant in Taiwan and other Asian countries - could be because in some they harvest kidneys from unwilling or unknowing donors. You can get a cheaper operation in Costa Rica, but try filing a civil lawsuit there if something goes wrong. Instead of cheering on California health insurance providers sanctioning care in Mexico, you should be livid that the same care costs too much in California and probably because of all the frivilous lawsuits and extra tests and the extra malpractice insurance providers in California need to have and pay for in order to survive.
    I am not championing anything, simply pointing out the other side of this coin. I don't think you champion superior care in this country vs say Canada- no statistics back such a claim up. What this country has is a faster treatment policy- for those who can pay. Lack a method of payment and it's a band aid and on your way. Some like Mickey Mantle or former VP Cheney get moved to the head of the line when most protocols would deny them.

    The ACA will not fix all the problems within Health Care, the lobbies in support of the status quo are powerful, but it is a start.

    The lawsuit issue is a funny one- that was what was used to discourage Americans from buying Canadian 'script drugs- you just don't know if they are legit.

    Now when it comes to suing bad doctors overseas- if the Insurance Company certified the off shore facility then they are on the hook to make any complication right and pursue any legal course of action. (Given how our legal system works most lawsuits don't end well for the patient, the lawyer perhaps but rarely the patient- is why they call it a practice and not a skill. )

    But while you champion our medical system I just wanted to point out so many more leave this country because the cost doesn't insure better care. 85K in which due to our costs means very rich folks vs over 750K leaving for a wide variety of countries to include New Zealand- with a 15 to 20% cost of the same operation (not exactly a 3rd world nation)

    Now tell us more aboot your neighbor who uses 500 bucks worth of Canadian insulin a month....

  4. #294
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Let's see, you had a policy that was cheap, well, because it was a cheap policy. If you got really sick, like cancer, you could be kicked off that cheap policy. If they didn't kick you off when you got cancer, then the lifetime max would kick in and you wouldn't have health ins. although you desperately needed it. Clearly, you had a cheap policy that did a reasonable job taking care of normal healthcare needs and it failed to take care of major needs. But, since most people are healthy most of the time, most people were dumb and happy about their situation, until they got really sick and they became very unhappy with their crappy situation after they were dropped and couldn't get health insurance anywhere because of the health insurance company death panels that evaluated their illness and denied them coverage due to their pre-existing condition.

    Clearly that cheap old policy cannot provide the standard of benefits required by Obamacare (which people need whether their short sighted minds realize it now or not), so the policy must be changed to specify new terms that meet the standard, and at a new rate.

    You are guaranteed coverage in the exchange, and that policy will not have a lifetime maximum, and you can't be dropped just because you have or get a serious illness. That's a much better policy.

    How is that a bad thing?
    Being as objective as I can, I have to agree. The high priced individual plans are obviously being cancelled because their terms do not comply with the ACA and are probably more expensive than the deals available through the exchanges, which are group rate policies. I understand some people are a little panicked because they can't get on the exchange website for the time being but there's no need to panic.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  5. #295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    I'm convinced it's by design that this entire cluster**** happened. Ultimately, give the middle class no choice but to adopt a single payer government plan and put the insurance industry out of business.

    But those folks in Congress will be exempt and get an aristocratic plan of their own.
    Well.... yea.

  6. #296
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    One of the problems folks don't touch on is how sub-standard the care is in the public / county hospitals that our system provided for the poor who could not afford insurance. When I grew up in the south in the 50's and 60's, the schools were segregated on color lines, black and white, and the law provided for "separate but equal". The reality was they were separate but UNEQUAL and the supreme court eventually ordered the practice to be ended. If you didn't get a good education there was no way you could meaningfully participate at first class corporations like IBM, American Express, Aetna, etc.

    Somehow today we have separate heathcare facilities and again they are UNEQUAL. People die as a result of this, and the right keeps trying to ignore this reality, like the white racists in the old south didn't care about substandard education under the old separate but unequal system from the 50's (see Brown vs. Board of Education).

    Video Shows Woman Dying on NY Hospital Floor - YouTube

  7. #297
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    One of the problems folks don't touch on is how sub-standard the care is in the public / county hospitals that our system provided for the poor who could not afford insurance. When I grew up in the south in the 50's and 60's, the schools were segregated on color lines, black and white, and the law provided for "separate but equal". The reality was they were separate but UNEQUAL and the supreme court eventually ordered the practice to be ended. If you didn't get a good education there was no way you could meaningfully participate at first class corporations like IBM, American Express, Aetna, etc.

    Somehow today we have separate heathcare facilities and again they are UNEQUAL. People die as a result of this, and the right keeps trying to ignore this reality, like the white racists in the old south didn't care about substandard education under the old separate but unequal system from the 50's (see Brown vs. Board of Education).

    Video Shows Woman Dying on NY Hospital Floor - YouTube
    Amen! Amen!

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #298
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.
    You're next para says something different than this one.

    My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.
    You're first para says something different than this one.


    No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.
    Car insurance is not health insurance (unless you are counting the accident provision). Are you saying health insurance should be required just in case you get a broken leg and it harms someone else? That's what I'm getting from your example.

    I am under no "moral imperative" to pay for somebody else's health insurance anymore than they are to pay for mine.



    Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.
    You list problems that could have been "fixed" without spending 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money (like it's only going to cost that much). But back to "you just made that up". You are the one that said people could not afford health insurance. make your mind up on which way you want to go.


    Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:


    Dying from Lack of Insurance

    So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.
    Once again, decide which way you are going to argue a point. You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for then say people don't get treatment without health insurance. And on to your Harvard study. Did they report how many people die each year that have health insurance? Then this: "The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands". And this:, "Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure,". So in other words, they don't have a clue. A study in Oregon showed health insurance had no positive trend in peoples health.
    Try a little consistency.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  9. #299
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Originally Posted by finebead
    Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.
    You're next para says something different than this one.

    My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.
    You're first para says something different than this one.
    I disagree, but you point is not specified. State it clearly and I will show you why they are not in conflict.


    Quote Originally Posted by finebead
    No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.
    Car insurance is not health insurance (unless you are counting the accident provision). Are you saying health insurance should be required just in case you get a broken leg and it harms someone else? That's what I'm getting from your example.
    Car ins. is not health ins., true statement. However, both have a component of personal responsibility not just to yourself, but to others. In car ins. you have a responsibility to carry it mandated by the state, because none of us intend to get in a wreck through our own fault and to cause damage that we can't afford to pay for. The states have determined they must compel us to do the right thing and carry a minimum level of liability to pay for damage we may cause and not have the ability to pay for. With Health ins., none of us expect to get in a serious car accident, but some of us will, we will require a large amount of healthcare expense, and if we don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital will recoup it by rolling it into the room rates and rates for other services, so everyone else ends up paying the tab. If you go to the hospital then you are paying for those who didn't have health ins. and walked on their tab. Now the federal govt. has mandated that everyone pay for a health ins. policy or pay a penalty. The reason govt. mandates each type of ins. is so people who can pay for an ins. policy but who can't pay for the expenses they incur will have the ins. company to pay their tab instead of dumping that tab on their fellow citizens in the case of health ins.

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree
    I am under no "moral imperative" to pay for somebody else's health insurance anymore than they are to pay for mine.
    But you end up paying for the deadbeats already. If you have health ins. your rates are higher than they need to be because the hospitals recoup the unpaid bills of the deadbeats by raising the fees for their services for everyone with the ability to pay. That causes your rates to go up if you have ins. and if you go in the hospital you pay your share on a higher rate. So, you are already paying.

    The govt. mandates ER care in the case of an emergency, but without any ability to collect if the patient is not insured and can't pay the bill. They do it because it would be immoral to allow the patient to die in that case. You are already under that moral mandate, since 1986.

    Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.
    You list problems that could have been "fixed" without spending 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money (like it's only going to cost that much). But back to "you just made that up". You are the one that said people could not afford health insurance. make your mind up on which way you want to go.
    You're inflating the cost of the program, provide a link please.

    If you think we could fix it for less, tell us how. I have not seen this plan.

  10. #300
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead
    Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:

    Dying from Lack of Insurance

    So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.
    ItAin'tFee said: Once again, decide which way you are going to argue a point. You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for then say people don't get treatment without health insurance. And on to your Harvard study. Did they report how many people die each year that have health insurance? Then this: "The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands". And this:, "Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure,". So in other words, they don't have a clue. A study in Oregon showed health insurance had no positive trend in peoples health.
    You said "You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for", and I didn't say that. Show me my quote where I said that. You are jumbling thoughts again.

    You said " then say people don't get treatment without health insurance.". This is generally true, except emergency conditions will be treated and stabilized and then the patient released. There is no obligation on the hospital to provide followup treatment, so people without health ins. don't get that from a private hospital even though that may be where they were taken after a serious car accident, they were saved, stabilized, and released, then nothing from that hospital. If someone needs medical attention but it is not an emergency and they don't have insurance or the ability to pay, they will not be treated by a private hospital.

    So, I have not made any contradictory statements, and you mis-interpreted one of my statements, which is why it appears contradictory to you, but you are wrong.

    The Harvard study is the most recent, and the article points out that the gap between insured and uninsured is growing as new treatments are made available to the insured. It makes sense that the most recent study would show the biggest difference. I encourage you to post the study you mentioned showing no difference, I don't believe it.

Page 30 of 37 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •