• 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

Right so you are against government subsidizies that do not benifit you, but are for them when they do,

I understand that totally

We shouldn't he take advantage of something that he and his family pay for with their taxes? It would be rather stupid of him to pay extra for something when he and his family are already paying for the student loan subsidy. Nice 'gotcha' attempt though.
 
Health care is NOT a right. It is an option. In my plan there are "Tiers" of health insurance. NO ONE is required to purchase health care insurance, and there are no fines if you do not.

Does this equate to everyone in the US being covered in one way or another (particularly to a major injury/disease)?

Tier 1: Public Option: this option is offered by the government at prices competitive with private insurance, or at low cost for those who have problems with affordability based on eligibility. It would be paid for through an additional tax called the "HC" tax. Folks who do not want this option, can opt out, and will either get a tax rebate for the "HC" amount, or will simply not be required to pay it, which ever is more efficient.

I agree for the most part. However, what about those who still opt out and happen to develop a serious injury or disease? How does this reduce/eliminate medical bankruptcy?

Tier 2: Private Option: for those who opt out of the public option. Folks can pay for private insurance, or accept their company's insurance options.

Are they forced to comply with various regulations that add to inefficiency i.e. state boundaries, insuring those with pre-existing conditions, etc...? A "public option" that competes with a private firm(s) will create a market foothold for the public option given firm objectives (profit/stop loss). It would be incredibly hard to compete in this environment.

Exemptions: Under no circumstances can any illegal alien receive any kind of health insurance, public, private, or Medicare/Medicaid.

Agreed.

Cost offset: This is the radical, yet cornerstone of my plan. If you opt out of the public option, and do not purchase a private plan, if you get ill, you MUST pay out of pocket. Under NO circumstances will the government subsidize your treatment. NO EXCEPTIONS... catastrophic illness, accident, children... NO EXCEPTIONS. The options will be there and will be affordable. You chose not to take one of them, you lose. No physician or hospital will be under any obligation to treat anyone with no ability to pay. They MAY if they choose, but they can also "opt out".

What effect does this have on current ER mandates? Hospitals and physicians will be able to turn anyone away if they perceive that they will not be able to pay? What about someone who "says" they will pay but does not have the means in which to comply? This (IMHO) will lead to an increase in medical bankruptcy which accounts for the majority of all bankruptcies in the US. Not to mention, MB is still a reality for millions of middle class Americans who do have coverage due to various payment restrictions.

Although inflation in insurance premiums has moderated in recent years, the Kaiser survey found that employees were continuing to spend more in medical costs, including their share of yearly insurance premiums. Employees are paying an average of $3,354 in premiums for family coverage, more than double the amount they paid in 1999. The total cost for family coverage now averages $12,680 a year, up 5 percent from 2007.

And as people are paying more, they are finding the higher expense less affordable. In the study by the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, based on its national survey of households, nearly one of every five families had problems paying medical bills last year. More than half of these families said they borrowed money to pay these expenses, and nearly 20 percent of those having difficulty said they contemplated declaring personal bankruptcy as a result of their medical bills.

The study estimates that 57 million Americans live in families struggling with medical bills, and 43 million of those have insurance coverage. “It’s hitting both the insured and the uninsured, and it’s hitting middle-class families,” said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research organization that financed the study.

Because they are already in debt over their medical care, some families start forgoing treatments, even for serious or chronic conditions, Ms. Davis said. By deciding not to fill a prescription for high blood pressure medication or failing to go to the doctor for diabetes, they are at risk of incurring more serious and costly problems that can land them in the emergency room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25health.html

Other parts of my plan:

1) Major Tort Reform.
2) The ability to purchase health care across state lines to further stimulate competition.
3) Elimination of insurance company driven utilization review, putting all treatment decisions in the hands of the provider.
4) No pre-existing condition limitation.
5) Adult children can remain on parental health insurance until 26.
6) Centralized, independent organization reviewing/evaluating all health care insurers (including the public option) with the power to fine or even shut down.

While i agree with the bold, how do private firms compete with the public option given the remaining points?

These are broad strokes, of course, but you get the gist. The plan above should both please liberals with a public option and making health care affordable to everyone, and to conservatives with creating a system that requires personal responsibility and competition. I'd be happy to answer questions about this plan, and am open to some REASONABLE additions. If you just want to throw hysterical partisan hackery at me, don't bother responding to this post. Both HarryGurellia and LaMidRighter have seen parts or all of this and, if I recall correctly, liked what they saw.

I have been toying with an idea for about a year now. It is very simple and has similar points.

1.) Guaranteed public option for anyone regardless of income, health, and age. This will be funded by the tax payers and can be considered "open arms" from medicaid/medicare. Even if you have private insurance and it does not cover the costs, this option will pick up the tab (although the private sector will not be able to use this as a means to "free ride").

2.) A heavily deregulated private insurance industry. Stipulated contractual coverage at multiple levels. For example, if you are a non smoker who is in good health and does not participate in "risky" activities (hang gliding etc...), you can purchase a policy that is much cheaper if you agree (contractually) to the specific terms. If it is found out that you violate them, you can be dropped immediately. Firms can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions that are not initially declared, and do not have to offer affordable policies for high risk potential clients. They will also have the ability to create policies that outsource major medical care (special surgery, experimental treatment, organ transplant).

3.) An independent advisory board consisting of both sides of the spectrum (public/private) that conduct investigations regarding fraud, abuse, malpractice, contract reneging, competition, price fixing, pricing abuse etc.... This independent board will also outline and design tort reform that can be handed over to vote a simple "yes/no" without legislatures redesigning it for political influence and/or will. This board would also conduct research in medical efficiency, cost effective measures that do not reduce quality as well as the differential effectiveness of pro bono (private) vs public financing for extreme cases.

It allows for true competition. Private firms cannot compete with the bottom line of a public option but have something a government run program does not: discretion. This would open the door to hospitals and physicians to refuse public insurance (Mayo, John Hopkins, Cleveland, etc... at the high end), and allow customers who feel "mistreated" to move to the public option without barriers. Essentially, it moves the most risky citizens off of the aggregate private risk pool into one that has the means in which to properly fund their medical care without "spreading" the costs. I have very little doubt this alone would dramatically lower costs or allow for more quality treatment.

A little more extreme than your plan CC, but i think it allows for greater competition between the public and private sector, while eliminating medical bankruptcy. Medicare was essentially created to shift the most risky citizens to the public sector. Why? Because the majority of your health care costs will be incurred when you are older, and the affordability for such coverage would extremely limited given that elderly people tend to live on fixed incomes.
 
Last edited:
It's a state by state law and has nothing to do with individual policies.

Are you saying such a law forbids actuary accounting practices that determine risk, pricing, and sustainable cash flow necessary to "swap" risk? If so, can i see a source?

I never said otherwise.

Auto liability insurance protects others from your negligence. Health insurance protects only the person insured.

Research medical bankruptcy and its effect on pricing.

You actually think that people with pre-existing conditions can be added, along with "kids" under 26 without a corresponding rate increase.

You are entering mucky waters. It all depends on the respective "pool" in which the policy is underwritten. Rate increases are primarily a function of declining cash flow used to swap (spread) risk. Being in a lower risk pool with a different policy mechanism does not face the same risk for declining cash flow (which lead to rate increases).

Those are just two of the many causes of insurance rate increases that will come out of this bill. Even the CBO, using the faulty assumptions from Pelosi, said there would be rate increases.

The CBO is about as accurate as the folks from the Mises institute. :shrug:
 
Are you saying such a law forbids actuary accounting practices that determine risk, pricing, and sustainable cash flow necessary to "swap" risk? If so, can i see a source?

I'm saying that some states do not allow insurance companies to raise rates due to claims involving uninsured drivers when it's not the fault of the policyholder..

Research medical bankruptcy and its effect on pricing.

Has nothing to do with the topic.

You are entering mucky waters. It all depends on the respective "pool" in which the policy is underwritten. Rate increases are primarily a function of declining cash flow used to swap (spread) risk. Being in a lower risk pool with a different policy mechanism does not face the same risk for declining cash flow (which lead to rate increases).

Are you claiming that all these millions of extra people with expensive illnesses can be covered without raising premiums???

The CBO is about as accurate as the folks from the Mises institute. :shrug:

The CBO is very accurate when they are given accurate information. Pelosi had them use assumptions that were not even close to reality last week, so their numbers are inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
I'm saying that some states do not allow insurance companies to raise rates due to claims involving uninsured drivers when it's not the fault of the policyholder..

Ok, then you are talking about an individual policy like i stated before.

Has nothing to do with the topic.

Has quite a bit to do with the topic.

Are you claiming that all these millions of extra people with expensive illnesses can be covered without raising premiums???

I am claiming that they are most likely not in my risk pool, and therefore i am not too worried.

The CBO is very accurate when they are given accurate information. Pelosi had them use assumptions that were not even close to reality last week, so their numbers are inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out.

To each their own i guess....
 
Yay! My broke family has to pay extra for our medical insurance because my dad is considered "self employed." Plus I get to pay for your medical costs because higher interests on my student loans (thanks Obama) get to pay for your health plans through this bill :D Thanks Mr. President, I always wanted the government to make my financially hurting family pay more for health insurance and have higher student loan interest rates.


Relax Digs... you're on the list. They'll get around to affordable college tuition reform in due time. Not soon enough, but much quicker than the obstructionists would.
 
Access to medical insurance is "about to hit us".
I'm tired of seeing my husband suffer and watch his chronic illness go untreated and get worse and worse.
You think I really give a flying frap if the economy gets worse?
It's in the tank already.
I want my husband's health to get better.
I want my loved ones to have access to basic medical care.

Forgive me for sounding callous, but this is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It does not belong in this discussion. Earlier in the thread you stated that you couldn't even get $55 dollars together for co-pay and prescriptions. Your problem has nothing to do with affording healthcare and everything to do with living outside your means.

What do you spend a month on car payments? Mortgage/rent? Cable/Internent? Credit card payments? How often do you eat out? My bet would be that you could have extra money to live on every month if you actually tried to budget your expenses.

Not picking on you specifically, your situation is the same for the majority of Americans. People live outside of their means and it's not my job to help them financially when they can't figure it out for themselves. Trust me, if I can figure it out at 25 years of age, anyone can.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has evoked more thread bans and more infractions than any thread in the history of DP. The posters that have already been eliminated, demonstrated that they were incapable of debating this topic with any civility or rationality. My suggestion to the rest of you is this. If you cannot debate this topic with civility and rationality, and feel that the only way you CAN is to either gloat, or whine, remove YOURSELF from the thread. You are doing NOTHING to help with your position, either pro- or con-. Take some responsibility for your own behaviors.

Hey, I have broken another DP record. I don't think I will ask for applause this time, though. :mrgreen:
 
or corporate america for that matter.

and yet corporations, as evil and vile as they may be, cannot force a citizen to do things against their will. They cannot take away your liberties. They cannot take away your money. Only government can do that (and they do it to the thunderous applause of fools like yourself).

Your signature is sophomoric by the way

This type of whining merely validates its congruence with reality (and if I'm not mistaken, this is like the 3rd time you've whined about it).
 
0_61_feet_320.jpg
 
A 2008 Charvel San Dimas Custom - Warren Demartini model. It rips.

Charvel makes great guitars, but my two favorites are Gretsch and Gibson. For basses, nothing beats a Schecter. :)
 
Relax Digs... you're on the list. They'll get around to affordable college tuition reform in due time. Not soon enough, but much quicker than the obstructionists would.

I know, and if there is anything I support in the Democrat party it's their view of education (minus liberal propaganda). I do hope they make higher education affordable in a time when Americans need degrees. However, it's almost theft with how much universities are allowed to charge for an education.
 
I know, and if there is anything I support in the Democrat party it's their view of education (minus liberal propaganda). I do hope they make higher education affordable in a time when Americans need degrees. However, it's almost theft with how much universities are allowed to charge for an education.

That's because of artificial demand created by education grants and subsidized loans.
 
That's because of artificial demand created by education grants and subsidized loans.

The universities know that as the government gives aid that they can charge more, it's not right. I don't know if giving the government the power to regulate university prices is a good thing, but it's definitely thievery on the universities part.
 
The universities know that as the government gives aid that they can charge more, it's not right. I don't know if giving the government the power to regulate university prices is a good thing, but it's definitely thievery on the universities part.

I agree and the quality of these schools is suspect to me.

My classes have been a joke so far.
 
I agree and the quality of these schools is suspect to me.

My classes have been a joke so far.

I'm pretty happy with most of my classes. I like my university, but it's in the most liberal part of Nashville and they always have these "green" rallies and media matters speakers... Our Dean used to be the Dean of Pepperdine in CA, I hope he doesn't liberalize the school any further. It is supposed to be a Christian university too under the wing of a fairly conservative denomination.
 
I'm pretty happy with most of my classes. I like my university, but it's in the most liberal part of Nashville and they always have these "green" rallies and media matters speakers... Our Dean used to be the Dean of Pepperdine in CA, I hope he doesn't liberalize the school any further. It is supposed to be a Christian university too under the wing of a fairly conservative denomination.

I'm not too far from you, my school is in Rome, Ga.

I go to a state school, so that may be it.
Private colleges tend to have more rigorous standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom