• 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!

A Simple Question -

Do you trust the federal government to do what's in your best interest

  • Total voters
    63
TOJ said:
Not referring to you, but in general, having trouble with insurance is not surprising considering your specialty. Your specialty has a long and proud history of committing fraud.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this in general, thought I have heard of some pretty fraudulant things done by certain providers.

Sounds to me like you are not discriminating enough in what insurance you accept. If enough providers would refuse insurance from companies that do not pay promptly, they would change their practices or go out of business. Do you need the additional business enough to put up with the hassle?

.
Click to expand...

This is nice in theory, but the problem is that, in the interim, considering the cost of services, a lot of people could then not afford them... hence, the amount of clients that I have would go down significantly. It would take time for insurance companies to "get the message". In that time, many folks would go without services and I would not be able to afford to practice. This is why, in my view, the best solution is to regulate the hell out of the insurance industry.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree with this in general, thought I have heard of some pretty fraudulant things done by certain providers.



This is nice in theory, but the problem is that, in the interim, considering the cost of services, a lot of people could then not afford them...
Click to expand...
Maybe you should lower your prices.


hence, the amount of clients that I have would go down significantly. It would take time for insurance companies to "get the message". In that time, many folks would go without services and I would not be able to afford to practice. This is why, in my view, the best solution is to regulate the hell out of the insurance industry.
Click to expand...
Of course it's the best solution from your POV. You get to charge outragous fees that your patients don't have to pay. If they had to pay for it they might shop around a little. :doh

.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree with this in general, thought I have heard of some pretty fraudulant things done by certain providers.



This is nice in theory, but the problem is that, in the interim, considering the cost of services, a lot of people could then not afford them... hence, the amount of clients that I have would go down significantly. It would take time for insurance companies to "get the message". In that time, many folks would go without services and I would not be able to afford to practice. This is why, in my view, the best solution is to regulate the hell out of the insurance industry.
Click to expand...

You mean regulate even more than currently? I spent about 14 years working for one of the bigger players (mostly Life and P&C) and can tell you insurance is already highly regulated. One problem - it is regulated by each of the 50 states, and some of teh regulations are trivial. We need to PROPERLY and INTELLIGENTLY regulate the industry
 
SheWolf said:
lol... so I am uneducated if you don't like my post?
Click to expand...

I can see how you came to this conclusion, however I think she was making the point that we mandate education so why not mandate health insurance. for the record I think it is a false analogy
 
The system has become more and more corrupt, because the People are not educated on government anymore. They don't understand or care about what's going on.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Do you trust the federal government (in its entirety) to do what's in your best interest?

Why or why not.
Click to expand...

For the most part, yes, I trust the government to do what is in the best interests of society. However, that is at the agency level mostly, at the top with the politicans, probably not so much.
 
American said:
The system has become more and more corrupt, because the People are not educated on government anymore. They don't understand or care about what's going on.
Click to expand...

I disagree - the people care. I think the problem is they don't think anyone in office cares what they think or worry about outside of election time and then it is just an act
 
snilloctjc said:
I disagree - the people care. I think the problem is they don't think anyone in office cares what they think or worry about outside of election time and then it is just an act
Click to expand...

Young people today are clueless wonders, bearly knowing where DC is.
 
snilloctjc said:
You mean regulate even more than currently? I spent about 14 years working for one of the bigger players (mostly Life and P&C) and can tell you insurance is already highly regulated. One problem - it is regulated by each of the 50 states, and some of the regulations are trivial. We need to PROPERLY and INTELLIGENTLY regulate the industry
Click to expand...
Is that ever the truth !
Our educational system must improve, to generate people who know how to read and write.
 
The federal government is run by a bunch of perfect strangers. Its laws and regulations are enforced by a bunch of perfect strangers. Violators are prosecuted by a bunch of perfect strangers.

Seeing as how I wouldn't invite a perfect stranger in off the street to live in my home or watch my boys while I'm at work, I don't see why I should trust the government with all the power it has.

The government has to have some power or it's worthless. I have to give the government some trust or risk becoming a gibbering nut.

I will not, however, ever trust it in its entirety, nor will I ever support unnecessary expansions of its authority.
 
TOJ said:
Maybe you should lower your prices.
Click to expand...

How about you take a cut in salary but watch your expenses continue to go up? Your suggestion is nonsense. Further, some insurance companies haven't changed their fee payouts in as much as 8 years. Tell your boss, "don't give me a raise for 8 years, even though prices if everything goes up."


Of course it's the best solution from your POV. You get to charge outragous fees that your patients don't have to pay. If they had to pay for it they might shop around a little. :doh

.
Click to expand...

No one charges outrageous fees… fees are pretty consistent throughout the industry, depending on the region, but that's right… regulation might actualyy force the insurance companies to pay what and when they are supposed to AND authorize benefits based on the treating provider's determination of medical necessity, rather than some bureaucrat on the other end of the phone who's only purpose is to figure out how no to pay, regardless of the patient's condition. What a novel idea. Healthcare insurance actually authorizing healthcare.
 
Last edited:
snilloctjc said:
You mean regulate even more than currently? I spent about 14 years working for one of the bigger players (mostly Life and P&C) and can tell you insurance is already highly regulated. One problem - it is regulated by each of the 50 states, and some of teh regulations are trivial. We need to PROPERLY and INTELLIGENTLY regulate the industry
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.
 
earthworm said:
Is that ever the truth !
Our educational system must improve, to generate people who know how to read and write.
Click to expand...

Simplistic I know - but the biggest improvement we can make to our educational system is to make it a mutual requirement. If the state requires you to attend they must also require you to participate and apply yourself. If you don't you are gone. Free, Universal public education is taken for granted because it is granted. It should some how be earned.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
How about you take a cut in salary but watch your expenses continue to go up? Your suggestion is nonsense. Further, some insurance companies haven't changed their fee payouts in as much as 8 years. Tell your boss, "don't give me a raise for 8 years, even though prices if everything goes up."
Click to expand...
I am not the one wanting the government to enact regulations to enhance my salary.

My salary is based on how our company is doing and that is based on how well we compete in the marketplace. Our customers do not have someone else paying their bills, They have to pay for our products and services themselves. If our prices and services are not competitive, we don't get their buisiness and my salary would take a hit.

Why do you think someone should get a raise just because time has passed? Maybe you should look for ways to cut expenses instead of expecting others to pony up more to support you ineffeciency. Your expenses are of no concern to anyone but you.


No one charges outrageous fees…
Click to expand...
If your customers cannot pay your fees and you have to rely on the government forcing others to pay for them, I would say your fees might be a tad out of line.

fees are pretty consistent throughout the industry, depending on the region
Click to expand...
Hmm, isn't that indicative of there being no competition. :doh

but that's right… regulation might actualyy force the insurance companies to pay what and when they are supposed to AND authorize benefits based on the treating provider's determination of medical necessity, rather than some bureaucrat on the other end of the phone who's only purpose is to figure out how no to pay, regardless of the patient's condition. What a novel idea. Healthcare insurance actually authorizing healthcare.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the healthcare provider, left to his own devices, will do what maximizes his own income when, at times, some things he does may not be necessary from a medical POV. This is especially true in your specialty.

.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Do you trust the federal government (in its entirety) to do what's in your best interest?

Why or why not.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so I don't know if this was brought up, but I voted "Other."

But while you ask a very simple and short question, the issue behind it isn't at all.

Technically, I could vote "no," but that would be disingenuous - a "no" vote would imply that I distrust the federal government because I believethey don't do what's in my best interest.

But the reason why I don't trust the federal government to do what's in my best interest is because it is not the purpose of the federal government to do what's in my best individual interests.

Rather, it is the purpose of the federal government to legislate and execute social policies in a consensus brought about by the representatives of it's citizenry.

Those two things are very very different things. It cannot possibly do what's in the best interests of individuals because individuals always have interests that compete with each other.

For example, there's two people, Able and Baker, but only one cake. It is in the best interest of Able to get the whole cake, but it is also in the best interest of Baker to get the whole cake. So it is impossible for the government to resolve this issue because of the scarcity of resources of the cake.

However, what the government can do is come to a consensus that gives Able and Baker the best outcome while taking both of their interests into account. So the government can choose to cut the cake in two equal pieces and give one half to Able and give the other half to Baker. While neither one gets the best outcome for their individual needs and wants, the government intercedes to create an outcome of compromise that is mutually beneficial to all parties without depriving any of the parties.

That is the ultimate purpose of government - to give people a way of determining resources peacefully in order to give to all of it's citizenry as high of a quality of life as realistically possible.

And if we didn't have any kind of government to determine such consensus, then it is most likely that Able and Baker would kill each other over who gets the whole cake, and neither one would benefit and the cake would just go stale and rotten and unused.
 
It is pretty evident that the government does not represent the people... it represents special intersets groups, the rich and it's own interests while placating the people and maintaining just enough freedom and purchasing power so as not to complain.
 
mike2810 said:
The Fed Govt. should look out for what is best for America, ensuring the Constitution is not stepped on, and the security of America. The individual is responsible for their own "best interest", actions, happiness and well being.
Click to expand...
A good policy, for the 18th century.
Now we are trying address ills such as racial discrimination, water and air pollution, un-necessary accidents and deaths, crime, education, corruption,greed, crime,hatred....on and on..
I do think that our government tens to re-react and get carried away with things...
 
earthworm said:
A good policy, for the 18th century.
Now we are trying address ills such as racial discrimination, water and air pollution, un-necessary accidents and deaths, crime, education, corruption,greed, crime,hatred....on and on..
I do think that our government tens to re-react and get carried away with things...
Click to expand...
Racial Discrimination was already addressed through the civil rights act, equal pay act, as are age discrimination, pregnancy discrimination act, housing discrimination... water and air pollution in the form of the clean air acts of 1963, 1970, 1977, 1990, , unnecessary accidents and deaths are just part of life, so no laws can make people less clumsy, or dissuade accidents from happening unless everyone lives in a plastic bubble. New crime laws by the thousands are put on the books every year at the local, State and Federal levels. Education - there are enough acts and funding around education at again, local, State and Federal levels with all roads leading to "throw more money at it". Greed, crime and hatred have existed as long as man has existed and will continue to exist, nothing will change that.

So I disagree, those things you've listed we've addressed; time and time again over and over, multiple time. More police, more money, more laws, more regulation more everything piled on top of each other for hundreds of years. That's not to say they cannot be improved, but we need a different approach. The same old same old just isn't working.
 
I do not trust the federal/national government because of the following examples:
The Pentagon Papers
Patriot Act
Operation Northwoods
MKULTRA

I could go on, and on and on. :doh
 
TOJ said:
I am not the one wanting the government to enact regulations to enhance my salary.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. I am wanting government regulations to prevent abuses in the healthcare industry.

My salary is based on how our company is doing and that is based on how well we compete in the marketplace. Our customers do not have someone else paying their bills, They have to pay for our products and services themselves. If our prices and services are not competitive, we don't get their buisiness and my salary would take a hit.
Click to expand...

That's nice. The healthcare industry is a different sort as healthcare is fairly necessary.

Why do you think someone should get a raise just because time has passed? Maybe you should look for ways to cut expenses instead of expecting others to pony up more to support you ineffeciency. Your expenses are of no concern to anyone but you.
Click to expand...

No, I think I'll just keep asking for a raise... like everyone else does when they do good work, and their expenses and cost of living increases. It's not my problem that insurance companies would prefer to fill their pockets than actually do what their industry claims to do. Until they do, I will continue to expose their abuses.


If your customers cannot pay your fees and you have to rely on the government forcing others to pay for them, I would say your fees might be a tad out of line.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. Government isn't paying the fees. Customers are paying premiums so when they need to utilize their benefits, they can. I would say that it is the insurance company's issue when they refuse to authorize those benefits so they don't have to pay.

Hmm, isn't that indicative of there being no competition. :doh
Click to expand...

Not at all. I know of no one who goes to a healthcare provider because the provider is cheaper. People go to health care providers because of the provider's reputation. You are showing extreme naivete about the industry.

The problem is that the healthcare provider, left to his own devices, will do what maximizes his own income when, at times, some things he does may not be necessary from a medical POV. This is especially true in your specialty.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that the insurance company, left to their own devices... which to some extent they are, will do whatever they can do to deny paying in order to maximize their profit, without any concern for the subscriber's medical situation. And sorry... but you are absolutely wrong. It is the PROVIDER, the person who actually sees the patient who makes the assessment onto the medical necessity for treatment. The insurance company has no concern for the patient, just maximizing profit, so their opinion has no validity, to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Neither am I. I am wanting government regulations to prevent abuses in the healthcare industry.
Click to expand...
And it is only a coincidence that it would help you financially.... right.


That's nice. The healthcare industry is a different sort as healthcare is fairly necessary.
Click to expand...
As is housing and food and ... maybe your industry is not as special as you seem to think it is. Actually, healthcare in your specialty is very seldom a matter of life and death and in many cases is more harmful than helpful.


No, I think I'll just keep asking for a raise... like everyone else does when they do good work, and their expenses and cost of living increases. It's not my problem that insurance companies would prefer to fill their pockets than actually do what their industry claims to do. Until they do, I will continue to expose their abuses.
Click to expand...
It is your choice to accept patients that use insurance companies that you consider abusive. If you need the business bad enough you are willing to put up with the hassles of dealing with them, you shouldn't go whining to the politicians for more regulations.


And you would be wrong. Government isn't paying the fees. Customers are paying premiums so when they need to utilize their benefits, they can. I would say that it is the insurance company's issue when they refuse to authorize those benefits so they don't have to pay.
Click to expand...
Private insurance is contract based. The contract determines what they should pay. If they truly should pay, the courts will enforce the contract and they will end up paying much more. But you want the governemnt to step in to force them to cover your services regardless.



Not at all. I know of no one who goes to a healthcare provider because the provider is cheaper. ....
Click to expand...
Of course not. They are not paying the bill. If people did not have to pay for their food, everyone would be eating steak and lobster a lot more often, I'm thinkin.


No, the problem is that the insurance company, left to their own devices... which to some extent they are, will do whatever they can do to deny paying in order to maximize their profit, without any concern for the subscriber's medical situation. And sorry... but you are absolutely wrong. It is the PROVIDER, the person who actually sees the patient who makes the assessment onto the medical necessity for treatment. ....
Click to expand...
In many cases the provider determines treatment based on what will be in the best interest of their own bank account, not what is best medically for the patient.

.
 
TOJ said:
And it is only a coincidence that it would help you financially.... right.
Click to expand...

The only financial assistance I would get from it, is actually getting paid what I am contracted to get paid. I see no issue with that.


As is housing and food and ... maybe your industry is not as special as you seem to think it is. Actually, healthcare in your specialty is very seldom a matter of life and death and in many cases is more harmful than helpful.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is very seldom a matter of life and death?!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one.


It is your choice to accept patients that use insurance companies that you consider abusive. If you need the business bad enough you are willing to put up with the hassles of dealing with them, you shouldn't go whining to the politicians for more regulations.
Click to expand...

It is my choice to accept these clients. It is my choice to want these insurance companies to abide by the rules that they set out. It is my choice to do everything I can to get regulations in place that force them to do so. If you do not like that... too bad.


Private insurance is contract based. The contract determines what they should pay. If they truly should pay, the courts will enforce the contract and they will end up paying much more. But you want the governemnt to step in to force them to cover your services regardless.
Click to expand...

The contract has more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese... and the insurance company does everything it can to slip through those loopholes and not pay. If they will not close them... and why should they, since their purpose is not to service their customers, but to maximize profit, I will certainly encourage the government to close those loopholes so their business practices are forced to be more ethical. It is obvious that the insurance industry is inacapable of monitoring itself.



Of course not. They are not paying the bill. If people did not have to pay for their food, everyone would be eating steak and lobster a lot more often, I'm thinkin.
Click to expand...

No one NEEDS steak or loberster. They just need food. Very poor analogy.


In many cases the provider determines treatment based on what will be in the best interest of their own bank account, not what is best medically for the patient.

.
Click to expand...

Does this occur? I'm sure it does, however it occurs far less often than it does with the insurance industry, where it is as common as breathing air. With providers, there are ethical sanctions for things like this. In the insurance industry, there are NO checks and balances. Regulate the hell out of them to create these checks and balances.
 
spud_meister said:
He's got a point, there's only a finite amount of times people can die.
Click to expand...

Once you die, it's no longer a matter of life and death. Just a matter of death... or being dead, to be grammatically correct.

Logic, my dear spud. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom