• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Bill has passed

But she opts out of her plan entirely because I have her and our kids on my plan.

So does she get to opt out, or does she get fined for not participating. Do I have to take her off of my plan? Must we have different plans altogether?

I'm sure there will be a bloated government committee designed to answer that very question. They'll get back to you in... oh.... 3 years or so. :rofl
 
No, that should tell your employer something. heheh

But yeah, this bill is nothing more than a play towards the insurance companies. It will do nothing to benefit the People.
I am my employer.
 
I'm sure there will be a bloated government committee designed to answer that very question. They'll get back to you in... oh.... 3 years or so. :rofl
I recall there being a new arm of the bureaucracy created to administer this mess.

Government flunkies gotta eat too, y'know ...
 
Not true, it's a risk pool, the reason group insurance is so expensive is because the least healthy in the pool skew the risk model towards the sub-standard end of the spectrum. Even if you have a full contributory policy, it is costing someone alot of money.

Yes but the larger the pool, the greater (typically) the decrease in the standard deviation of individual required costs. Certain pools that consist of too high of risk (pre-existing) members can then be subsidized in an effort to contain prices in this particular demographic.

Correct, but you don't add risk to save money. Forcing people into health rolls artificially with no gap-loss possibility will shock the system, I am not a fan of pre-existing conditions.......but, if time was to be allotted for absorbtion of risk slowly it would be a better solution.

Which is why subsidization is necessary. Consider the highest risk pool: elderly Americans.

Also correct, which is also a problem with overconsumption of the group model, healthier people should go individual, however group has recieved preference through the years and it has skewed data to unrecognizable figures.

Which i believe comes with the emergence of massive HMO coverage. Not even that i am against the concept; but they have truly overstepped there boundary.

Eh, if someone can pay cash for care or can work out payment plans more power to them. I still say they should have a major med. policy or figure out a plan to absorb the risk. But I am a fan of choice.

I am a fan of choice as well. But not when other peoples choices begin to negatively effect me and my country. A person who can afford while choosing not to faces far greater risk of bankruptcy. Of all the truly wealthy people i know who can afford $100,000 + surgery, not one of them does not have adequate medical coverage.

Need solid examples, every plan is different.

Classic example: Policies that do not cover invasive procedures without the use of anesthesia (defensive). What if that person is being advised by their physician to get a liver biopsy? We are talking $5,000 out of pocket. If something severe goes untreated, we are talking potentially 10 or 20 times the liability.
 
**** you, that's why! Why should you tell me what to do with my money? Why should you force me to play your game? If I could afford the rip off which is health insurance, I still don't need it. There is a real problem, the real problem is that America pays more for heath care and has the least access to it than any other industrialized country out there. This bill doesn't address the problem, it merely forces me to play in a corrupt game. Thanks for spending my money for me, but I think I knew better how to use it.

Me? OK.

Health Care for America shouldn't be seen as a "game". Many people have died because of being turned away due to having preexisting health conditions. Many people have died because they couldn't afford the existing system without reform.

Sure, no one wants to focus their attacks and attention on the many people in America that has died (and will) due to not having health care, however it's easy to call a voting congressman /woman N***** along with our president. Where is your anger concerning this matter Sir?


It's OK to voice your displeasure and type your anger over what "game" is being played, yet I do not read any words indicating why health care needed to be reformed. In hopes, people can finally afford health care insurance so they will not have to die because they cannot.



If you are a human being, you need health care because the human body isn't meant to go without some kind of duress.

If you truly want to complain, do it to those congressmen and women who protested and didn't vote for this reform. Complain to those law makers that made even this version of health care reform so nearly impossible for succession.

Complain in why the Bush Administration did not dare touch health care reform when collectively they knew, many Americans were dying each day without it.

No one said the bill was perfect; I do not blame the president. I would have kept Abortion funding in given its a law. However, I understand taking away from something you hold dear for the greater good, is doing the noble thing. And this is what the president had to do to please people like you.

I applaud new health care reform that will save lives. Our economy will improve. Hopefully all I lives will also.
 
Many people have died because of being turned away due to having preexisting health conditions. Many people have died because they couldn't afford the existing system without reform.
How many have died?
 
Yes but the larger the pool, the greater (typically) the decrease in the standard deviation of individual required costs. Certain pools that consist of too high of risk (pre-existing) members can then be subsidized in an effort to contain prices in this particular demographic.
The problem I see with that is we are an aging demographic, I could see this argument having merit if for every person attaining age 45+ we saw 4 births, unfortunately it's about a 1:3 ratio right now if my memory is correct. This follows that the model will skew towards higher risk classes.



Which is why subsidization is necessary. Consider the highest risk pool: elderly Americans.
I have a major problem with subsidation under this bill, nothing in it fixes problems, they will get worse.



Which i believe comes with the emergence of massive HMO coverage. Not even that i am against the concept; but they have truly overstepped there boundary.
I hate HMO's, they are among the worst coverage models ever concieved, while there are a few decent ones, they are horribly mismanaged.



I am a fan of choice as well. But not when other peoples choices begin to negatively effect me and my country. A person who can afford while choosing not to faces far greater risk of bankruptcy. Of all the truly wealthy people i know who can afford $100,000 + surgery, not one of them does not have adequate medical coverage.
I agree, part of a good business or individual budget model is risk prevention. Again, other people's problems are ours because of prior government interference.



Classic example: Policies that do not cover invasive procedures without the use of anesthesia (defensive). What if that person is being advised by their physician to get a liver biopsy? We are talking $5,000 out of pocket. If something severe goes untreated, we are talking potentially 10 or 20 times the liability.
I've seen those types of stipulations in bad models, then again what I love about being independent is that I don't have to sell that kind of garbage. I'm not saying that insurers are completely innocent, or that the bad ones shouldn't be held accountable, but it isn't a standard practice.....at least in this region.
 
Freedom of choice regarding how I spend my own money that *I* make IS a good thing. Freedom for me to decide for myself what is best for ME and my health care IS a good thing. Freedom for me to choose whether or not I wish to buy a private sector product IS a good thing. Freedom for me to take that same money that would otherwise go into a black hole and instead invest it wisely and see a return on that investment IS a good thing.

We are not here to have a heart to heart about our feelings. Risk management is vital to all aspects of industry. And if your choices effect others???

Health Insurance is part of the reason FOR the high costs. How the **** can adding more health insurance ever hope to decrease costs?

Proper (this is key) risk management models do not typically increase the long run costs of any industry they are used in. Making poor health decisions, not possessing coverage when you can afford it, abusing ER, aging population, etc... have a greater impact on skyrocketing costs of health care. These issues need to be addressed first. Requiring everyone pay their own way is a juvenile thing to say given the nature of health care demand....

Of course it's acceptable to choose not to purchase a private sector product. It's perfectly acceptable to not be fined just for being alive.

If my neighbor does not carry proper home owners insurance and his home burns down....... It will effect the value of my home while incurring both implicit and explicit costs....

The patient pays them. See, this is how it *should* be. No govt involvement. No insurance. Just the doctor, and the patient. Period. Costs would drop dramatically.

Awwwww..... And people shouldn't be murdered. You are aware that given such a system, everyone would not be able to cover the costs of the services they demand to stay alive. Again a juvenile way of looking at the situation.

Insurance, govt, and malpractice are what have raised the costs of healthcare.

No.... Fat people, tobacco use, and a general disregard for healthy living (until it is too late) have much greater impact. You are in no position to make such analysis given the cost of US health care comparatively, along with double digit increases, childhood obesity, etc....
 
How many have died?

Round 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance. Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance - CNN.com
 
Oh this is just great...just effin' great:

On page 65 of the bill, it is mandated that tax payers will subsidize the plans of all UNION retirees and "community organizations".

And then on page 95, it states that the federal government will pay ACORN and Americorp to sign people up for the government run option.
 
Round 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance. Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance - CNN.com
Congratulations, you fell for it. The 45,000 number is a farce:
1. Does the study interview people only once and then assume that they remain uninsured? If so, it will likely overstate the fraction of people who die because they don’t have health insurance. Relatively few people remain uninsured for more than a year.

2. Does the study track how people died? If not, it probably overstates the number of deaths due to a lack of insurance. Younger people are more likely to be uninsured. Younger people are also more likely to die from homicide, something that health insurance has nothing to do with. If homicides or accidents contribute to the higher mortality in the uninsured group, it is not reasonable to claim that their higher mortality is due to a lack of health insurance.

3. Does the study control for different the differences in social and economic status between the insured and the uninsured groups? All work to date suggests that people who are uninsured differ from the privately insured in ways that are likely to independently increase mortality even in people with coverage. For example, the uninsured are more likely to be high school dropouts, more likely to smoke, less likely to have ever worked, and less likely to be married. All of these characteristics are associated with higher mortality whether or not someone has health insurance.
Not that it will change the mind of a blind partisan Obamaphile, but at least ignorance is no longer an excuse for you. :2wave:
 
The problem I see with that is we are an aging demographic, I could see this argument having merit if for every person attaining age 45+ we saw 4 births, unfortunately it's about a 1:3 ratio right now if my memory is correct. This follows that the model will skew towards higher risk classes.

Agreed. Yet given the nature of health care demand, these services are going to be demanded. If they are demanded, they will have to be paid for one way or another. Subsidization for the most risky pools already exists but in my opinion needs to take on even more.

I have a major problem with subsidation under this bill, nothing in it fixes problems, they will get worse.

Nothing wows me about this bill, and i am indifferent on whether it passed or not. However, if it can expand coverage to 30 million plus, it is better than nothing :shrug:

I agree, part of a good business or individual budget model is risk prevention. Again, other people's problems are ours because of prior government interference.

Care to expand a bit more?



I've seen those types of stipulations in bad models, then again what I love about being independent is that I don't have to sell that kind of garbage. I'm not saying that insurers are completely innocent, or that the bad ones shouldn't be held accountable, but it isn't a standard practice.....at least in this region.

But you do get my point. Medical bankruptcy and delinquent repayment do much to drive up the costs of health care.
 
We are not here to have a heart to heart about our feelings. Risk management is vital to all aspects of industry. And if your choices effect others???
How does my decisions about my own healthcare affect anyone but me?


abusing ER
Of the **** you listed, only that one adds to the costs.

If my neighbor does not carry proper home owners insurance and his home burns down....... It will effect the value of my home while incurring both implicit and explicit costs....
How the **** does having home owners insurance stop his house from burning down?


Awwwww..... And people shouldn't be murdered. You are aware that given such a system, everyone would not be able to cover the costs of the services they demand to stay alive. Again a juvenile way of looking at the situation.
Yes, they would be able to afford it. The costs would drop dramatically, and people can make payments on larger bills.

No.... Fat people, tobacco use, and a general disregard for healthy living (until it is too late) have much greater impact.
No, those play a part in the use of healthcare, but not the costs of it. Except of course in the cases of those people sucking from the govt teat.

You are in no position to make such analysis given the cost of US health care comparatively, along with double digit increases, childhood obesity, etc....
Yes, I am.

Round 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance. Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance - CNN.com
How does not having insurance cause people to die? I'm continually amazed at how people toss such ridiculous statements out there as if they mean anything.

I've not had insurance most of my life. I can't believe I'm still alive!
 
Oh this is just great...just effin' great:

On page 65 of the bill, it is mandated that tax payers will subsidize the plans of all UNION retirees and "community organizations".

And then on page 95, it states that the federal government will pay ACORN and Americorp to sign people up for the government run option.


From Facebook
Roland Martin :
Joe Pagliarulo thinks Dems are socialists for voting for healthcare. Are Republicans socialists for approving prescription drug bill?
 
Welcome to the Federated Corporate Socialist States of America.
 
Agreed. Yet given the nature of health care demand, these services are going to be demanded. If they are demanded, they will have to be paid for one way or another. Subsidization for the most risky pools already exists but in my opinion needs to take on even more.
Well, on the demand argument we have an artificially created demand that has just been created, it would not have to be subsidized if it had not been legislated.



Nothing wows me about this bill, and i am indifferent on whether it passed or not. However, if it can expand coverage to 30 million plus, it is better than nothing :shrug:
This thing is going to cause massive economic damage and further dependence on government services, there have been instances where it's most ardent supporters have pretty much let that slip.



Care to expand a bit more?
Sure. For instance with this situation, you don't have to be insured, or even pay to seek medical assistance in certain instances because of federal law, it puts a strain on hospitals which raises costs. If you pay cash you get a discount, but since many can't pay cash the increases are assessed on insurance payouts, when insurance companies have to pay more then we have to pay more. If the federal government hadn't put that burden on hospitals in the first place, along with very unfriendly tort laws which further not only increases in cost, CYA medicine, and an upward shift of MM. Insurance, we would see savings passed along to us down the entire health chain.




But you do get my point. Medical bankruptcy and delinquent repayment do much to drive up the costs of health care.
True, and while I agree with you, I can't go as far as to force people to purchase.
 
I wonder how long it will be before the gubment once again makes me into a Criminal, for not having the money to purchase their "Mandatory Insurance"??
 
And meanwhile the pharmacutical industry is still the worlds biggest sham and reaping more ill-gotten gains than a street drug dealer could dream of.
 
From Facebook
Roland Martin :
Joe Pagliarulo thinks Dems are socialists for voting for healthcare. Are Republicans socialists for approving prescription drug bill?

Oh well if it's on ****ing facebook, that just changes everything, doesn't it? :roll:
 
I'm so tired of my elected representatives and officials continuing to vote to bring the government deeper and deeper into my life. Time to grab my guns and bibles... :bolt
 
How does my decisions about my own healthcare affect anyone but me?

Who picks up the bill if you develop a serious condition? How does this effect aggregate cost?

Of the **** you listed, only that one adds to the costs.

Nope! You just are ill informed in regards to health care economics. :2wave:

How the **** does having home owners insurance stop his house from burning down?

Never said it did (so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth). However, if a vacant charred house is sitting there for a year until it can be restored because my douche of a neighbor didn't purchase insurance.... It will effect me. You understand how externalities work?

Yes, they would be able to afford it. The costs would drop dramatically, and people can make payments on larger bills.

That all sounds really nice. Reality dictates something different entirely.

No, those play a part in the use of healthcare, but not the costs of it. Except of course in the cases of those people sucking from the govt teat.

Going out quite far on the limb? Given your history for faulty comments in regards to health care economics, i cannot take your opinion seriously. The market for health care does not behave in a simple supply/demand fashion. There more forces at work, in which you have neglected to define and/or comment on.

Yes, I am.

Not with the least bit of accuracy. All you provide are normative rants.
 
This health care bill is crazy. The government is taking away our constitutional rights by forcing everyone to have health insurance. The question is how far are we going to let them go? We may end up like Canada with insanely high taxes. Then instead of the United States being a Democracy, were looking at becoming Socialists. Who knows how high they are going to raise our taxes, it's not fair for the people who work hard for their money now we are going to have to pay for people who didn't work hard enough. To me that just isn't fair.
 
Back
Top Bottom