DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 13, 2010, 10:18:22 PM
-
(http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/logo_critical_2010_square.jpg)
Obamacare: Now Legally as Well as Politically Unstable
December 13, 2010 4:23 P.M.
By James C. Capretta
The decision on the individual mandate handed down today by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in the Eastern
District of Virginia makes it clear that Obamacare is on extremely shaky legal ground. That's fitting, because
it's been on shaky political ground for well over a year now. Today's decision, possibly joined by others in the weeks
ahead is going to strengthen the already strong perception that this law was ill-advised from the get-go and
needs to be repealed to make way for a more sensible, consensus-driven program.
Specifically, the judge's ruling today found that the new law's requirement that all Americans must purchase
government-approved health insurance or face a fine was not a permissible use of the lawmaking authority
granted to Congress under the Constitution. In other words, Congress doesn't have unlimited authority to
do anything it wants. Its powers are carefully enumerated. And among them is not the power to force
Americans to buy something they would otherwise forgo.
Without the individual mandate, the whole Obamacare edifice crumbles. The judge did not rule that the entire
law must be invalidated. But if the individual mandate goes, the insurance regulations and most especially
the requirement that insurers must take all comers without regard to their health status, will never work.
Patients could simply wait to enroll in health coverage until they needed some kind of expensive treatment
or procedure, and thus pocket the premiums they would have paid when they were not in need of much
medical attention.
Still, it's been clear for some time that repeal advocates should never bank on courts bailing the country
out of Obamacare. This issue is far too important to leave to such an unpredictable process. Moreover,
even if the mandate and related provisions are gutted by the courts, that would still leave many horribly
damaging aspects of Obamacare in place, such as the massive entitlement expansions and the heavy
reliance on government-imposed price controls.
Today was a good day. But it's really just a small skirmish in a much wider war. By all means, every legal
remedy should be pursued. But Congress has a responsibility to undo this mess as well, regardless of how
the court cases turn out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/255196/obamacare-now-legally-well-politically-unstable-james-c-capretta (http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/255196/obamacare-now-legally-well-politically-unstable-james-c-capretta)
-
shhhhhhhhhh
-
I think I can count on 1 hand, the number of times I've heard of this as a leading MSM headline.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz121410dAPR20101214044552.jpg)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/12-14_10Obamacare_DO20101214010424.jpg)
-
Surprising the amount of clucking going on considering that other federal judges have ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional.
?One hundred and fifteen miles away, a different judge in a different district rendered a different decision,? Gibbs said, referring to a Nov. 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, in Lynchburg, Virginia, named by President Bill Clinton. That decision upheld the act in a lawsuit brought by the evangelical Liberty University and five individuals. U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Michigan, another Clinton appointee, also sided with the government.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html)
-
Supreme Court....here we come
So, does this ruling put a "hold" on any further attempts at implementing Cash for Croakers, until ruled upon?
-
So, does this ruling put a "hold" on any further attempts at implementing Cash for Croakers, until ruled upon?
No
-
Then currently this is not making any sense. It's as if this ruling never was made then. Is that about the size of it? A non existant, non functional ruling?
-
?There?s a lot of activity focused now on alternatives to the mandate,? said Dan Mendelson, chief executive officer of Avalere Health, a Washington-based consulting firm.
Hudson, who didn?t order the government to stop work on implementing the law during an appeal, limited his ruling to the mandatory insurance provision.
Peter Urbanowicz, a managing director at Alvarez & Marsal Healthcare Industry Group in Washington, said he read the decision to leave in place all of the law?s obligations on insurers for expanded coverage. If Hudson?s decision is upheld, insurance companies would be required to provide new benefits without expanding the pool of insureds, he said in an e-mail.
That would cause ?skyrocketing costs? for insurers, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the Washington lobby group, America?s Health Insurance Plans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html)
-
So...it's not a ruling in any way shape or form, merely his profressional "judgement" on the mandating insurance angle
-
No his ruling is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Other federal judges have ruled that it is. Thus the march to Scotus. They usually handle conflicting rulings.
-
I'm fully aware they handle conflicting rulings. But this ruling had no actionable component, thus all that's left is merely his judgement
-
I'm fully aware they handle conflicting rulings. But this ruling had no actionable component, thus all that's left is merely his judgement
No his ruling did not place an injunction against proceding with other components of the bill, the individual mandate didn't kick in until 2014, but the actionable component of his ruling is that the overall bill is now in conflict and that conflict must be resolved by the higher authority of the Supreme court. And since the cornerstone of the bill, which required individual coverage, in order to offset the higher costs to insurance companies of having to cover pre-existing conditions is now in question, the entire house of cards might fall.
Or premiums will rise accordingly. Followed by the wrath of the public. So yes Obama and the dems were dealt a blow, but it wasn't fatal at this point.
-
I see
-
Let me get this straight.
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase
and fined if we don't, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't
understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief
who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's broke.
What the hell could possibly go wrong???
{em}
-
Not just that....but the "rationale" on how the left is trying to claim Cash for Croakers is constitutional is pretty.......out there:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder comment in today's Washington Post on the recent Virginia ruling that overturned parts of Obamacare.
...opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories and dig up old ones that were rejected 80 years ago. Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is unlawful because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a bystander when it comes to health care. All of us need health care eventually. Do we pay in advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later, when we need medical care?
Judge Henry Hudson claimed that the Affordable Care act extended beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause. But that doesn't matter to Holder and Sebelius. To them, inactivity can mean whatever they want it to mean, and the Constitution doesn't matter.
Commentary (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/JillianBandes/2010/12/14/holder_and_sebelius_call_obamacare_ruling_invented)
Anyone want to wager on how SCOTUS is going to rule? If its 5-4, are the cries for how "partisan" the court has gotten, going to ring relentlessly
-
Wonder how states can mandate auto insurance?
-
By themselves, I'd imagine....free of any Federal mandate, which by design is to remain within its Constitutional authority. Anything not, is the privvy of the states. Not to mention that the lack of auto insurance has an effect on the potential health to someone else, via an accident. No such beast, in this debate
-
So if the states mandated individual health coverage there would be no controversy?
-
There'd be anger, and again, it'd be fought on its afront to the consitution, since it's not protecting others, as car insurance does. But it'd have stronger legs, since it'd be a state issue, and thus not completely restricted by the Constitution which is to keep the Fed in check.....in theory of course. In reality, that got dumped, long ago
-
Wonder how states can mandate auto insurance?
You're forced to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car? Never knew that.
-
Wonder how states can mandate auto insurance?
You're forced to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car? Never knew that.
You are forced to buy auto insurance if you intend to properly register and tag the vehicle to drive it on public roads.
-
since it's not protecting others
What about infectious diseases, should they not be treated?
-
And what % of those diseases actually impact others? You can have an infectious disease, and not effect anyone or anything. You have an accident, there's damage to car, and in all likelyhood another person
-
And what % of those diseases actually impact others?
Does it matter? What percent of auto accidents injure others? If the state has an interest in one it has an interest in the other.
-
Sure it does. The rationale for mandating auto insurance is because of the high probability of damage, if not death involved.....to someone else. Infectious diseases are a mere fraction of what folks use heathcare for. Mandating such coverage for such a small % is ....... intrusive in the least, no matter how good the "intentions" are
-
Should a person with an infectious disease be allowed to refuse treatment?
-
Absolutely.....its their health. If they start making efforts to purposely try to infect someone else, then there can be repercussions to consider
And again, a fraction of what Healthcare is used for
-
Should a person with an infectious disease be allowed to refuse treatment?
Absolutely.....its their health. If they start making efforts to purposely ty to infect someone else, then there can be repercussions to consider
So you would be OK with quarantine?
and the reason would be that the infected person was a danger to others?
And if left untreated some infectious diseases are fatal.
Would that conflict with a states attempted suicide laws?
-
If someone is actively trying to infect another person, I'd advocate repercussions. That doesn't equate to a quarantine. A fine to start off with. Criminal charges if the infectious disease is serious enough to someone else, and jail time if they managed to infect that other person
-
You would fine someone walking around with TB?
-
Are they purposely trying to get someone infected?
Let's put it another way. Want to google what % of folks who are walking around with TB, compared to the general public? And then google what % of those are actively trying to spread their disease? (if that's possible) And you think THAT's a compelling reason for the state to mandate health insurance for 100% of its population?
-
Typhoid Mary didn't really intend any harm, but the best job she could find was as a cook.
Was it just to lock her up a long time? , she never understood the justice, she was never sick with Typhoid at all.
-
And you think THAT's a compelling reason for the state to mandate health insurance for 100% of its population?
Where did I say that?
-
Let's try getting back to the questions, vs trying to claim some accusation. You keep trying to make this about the state having some vested interest analogus to mandating car insurance. I'm demonstrating how its not. Not even close
-
You keep trying to make this about the state having some vested interest analogus to mandating car insurance. I'm demonstrating how its not. Not even close
Just to be clear.
You don't have a problem with the state mandating insurance if you are to register and operate a vehicle on public roads?
-
I have a "problem", but I can understand why the state would have a vested interest, considering the damage to another person and their property an accident could have. In fact, the mandate is simple liability, not even requiring yourself to be insured.
-
I have a "problem", but I can understand why the state would have a vested interest, considering the damage to another person and their property an accident could have. In fact, the mandate is simple liability, not even requiring yourself to be insured.
What is the states vested interest in this?
-
Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/property, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault
But why are we talking about this? There is no comparison when it comes to healthcare. That's a personal choice
-
Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/propery, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault
I'm not sure how having insurance helps prevent injury/damage to a person or property, but it does show that you would have the means to compensate for any damages whether to person or property if you are found liable for the accident. 49 of the 50 states require proof of insurance at the minimum at the time of the accident though many require it when you register the vehicle. NH is the only state that just requires proof of financial responsibility.
So really the states interest, if any, is to make sure people get paid.
Driving a motor vehicle is a personal choice. Obtaining medical care is a personal choice. I would think that requiring insurance in both cases is to make sure people are compensated for services rendered.
So that is why we are talking about it. It is simply a thought exercise.
As for my personal philosophy. I think if your goal is to land a man on the moon then you should land a man on the moon. And if your goal is universal health care then that is what you should provide.
Obamacare is an epic fail in that regard.
-
IN what way is requiring health insurance for everyone different from requiring liability insurance?
If you don't have liability insurance, the take away your license to drive. You cannot take away anyone's permit to live, so a fine would seem to be the only equivalent.
Why has no one not ruled that the Massachusetts health insurance law unconstitutional, as it is almost the same as ACA?
I don't agree with the judge on this, because unless insurance is required from everyone, we will never have a universal health care program, and the uninsured and unaffordable problem will continue to grow.
-
Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/propery, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault
Driving a motor vehicle is a personal choice. Obtaining medical care is a personal choice. I would think that requiring insurance in both cases is to make sure people are compensated for services rendered.
The chasm of difference here is again, the compensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage/injury to SOMEONE ELSE. No one is saying you don't pay for your OWN healthcare services. If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it. But its your choice, if you want said services. A car accident wasn't a "personal choice". The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non personally chosen accident
So that is why we are talking about it. It is simply a thought exercise.
I deduce its merely arguing, for the sake of arguing, since there's still no substantive comparison between the reasons for mandating auto insurance, vs that of mandating healthcare insurance.
It's strange to consider that way back when, companies that offered healthcare insurance were considered beacons of progress, as it was an incentive to want to go work for them, vs a company that didn't offer it. Sad how this country has so waffled to political correctness
-
The chasm of difference here is again, the comensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage injury to SOMEONE ELSE. No one is saying you don't pay for your healthcare services. If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it. But its your choice, if you want said services. A car accident wasn't a "personal choice". The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non chosen accident
I don't believe contracting cancer is a choice either. But you either get treated by professionals or you die. Since the average person does not have the wherewithal to pay for these kind of treatments insurance is needed to make sure the providers are not victims of theft of services.
It's all about the benjamins.
Same with auto insurance. Yes you are given the option of not obtaining collision insurance, but the real intent of the law is to make sure that the non guilty party is made whole again. Which means that they are not held liable for the damages but the responsible party is.
All about the benjamins.
Speaking of benjamins, the primary reason the employers started offering health insurance was as a means to raise compensation for employees during WWII, when Wage and Price controls were in effect.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us)
-
The chasm of difference here is again, the comensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage injury to SOMEONE ELSE. No one is saying you don't pay for your healthcare services. If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it. But its your choice, if you want said services. A car accident wasn't a "personal choice". The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non chosen accident
[/color]
I don't believe contracting cancer is a choice either. But you either get treated by professionals or you die.
It's still a choice. Most people have access to healthcare, and most CHOOSE to get health insurance. In this country freedom wins out in the end. So, you can paint all kinds of nasty, unfair, & sad scenarios, but in the end, your position mandating that someone else pay for your care. That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.
It's all about the benjamins.
No, it's all about freedom, vs who's doing the dictating. But at least we're getting away from the rather ineffective comparison of auto vs health insurance, and more to the notion of "good intentions" behind UHC advocates,..... as flawed as they may be
-
So, you can paint all kinds of nasty, unfair, & sad scenarios, but in the end, your position mandating that someone else pay for your care. That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.
Where did i claim:
1) that i wanted someone else to pay for my healthcare
2) that i was Christian
-
Boy, you really have a problem with non accusatory accusations. I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else. And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care. If you are a proponent of UHC, THEN, you may be accept said accusation. If you are merely arguing for "thought exercise", then obviously it wouldn't be an accusation now, would it ::)
-
I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else.
Why bring it up, in a response to me?
And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care.
Which also means they are paying for their own healthcare.
-
I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else.
Why bring it up, in a response to me?
Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way. You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter. If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front
And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care.
Which also means they are paying for their own healthcare.
No, it means they're paying for everyone, which happens to include themselves. Far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves, which again brings us to that ever so bothersome freedom of choice angle, a cornerstone to this country's existance and constitution
-
No, it means they're paying for everyone, which happens to include themselves.
That is how insurance works.
http://www.superpages.com/supertips/how-does-insurance-work.html (http://www.superpages.com/supertips/how-does-insurance-work.html)
-
and..........?
-
and..........?
And what?
-
Well, if you can't answer that, I can't help you. Once again, it's a far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves
-
Well, if you can't answer that, I can't help you. Once again, it's a far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves
So you don't think people need insurance, they are better off self insuring?
-
I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated.
I can understand the state's vested interested in trying to protect OTHERS by mandating liability car insurance, in the event of a non-chosen accident.
There is no compelling arguement for the state to MAKE people carry health insurance for themselves. Made exponentially worse when its mandating that people pay for everyone else's healthcare
CHOICE vs NOT
FREEDOM vs NOT
AMERICA vs NOT
-
Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way. You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter. If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front
why throw out non related opinion-oids in a debate that has no religious undertones?
That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.
But since you did, helping one another is an extremely Christian thing to do, in fact it is the essence of Christianity:
"What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
-
I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated.
Should they be required to show proof of financial responsibility and should health providers be allowed to deny care to those who choose not to be insured without having proof of financial responsibility?
Choices have consequences, right?
-
Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way. You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter. If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front
why throw out non related opinion-oids in a debate that has no religious undertones?
Because it was petinent IMO, given how this country is predominantly Chrisitian
That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.
But since you did, helping one another is an extremely Christian thing to do, in fact it is the essence of Christianity
and I never said otherwise.........foundation of Christianity, Faith, followed closely by FREE WILL (translated, we're not mandated to help one another, merely that its the right thing to do....BY CHOICE)
I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated.
Should they be required to show proof of financial responsibility and should health providers be allowed to deny care to those who choose not to be insured without having proof of financial responsibility?
What the frell? Last time I checked, insurance offers what they offer, you choose what you want, if you want it, given the resources you have. ::)
Choices have consequences, right?
Absolutely
-
For those who choose not to obtain health insurance, what should the consequences be for that choice?
-
Their consequence is not having it
-
So much for the thought exercise. Anyone else want to pick up Sirs ball?
-
You think they should be punished? Rewarded? What did you have in mind? Inquiring minds would love to know
-
I think if one chooses to not join an insurance pool and they seek medical attention they should be required to prove financial ability to pay for services rendered and if they can't they should be turned away. Choices have consequences.
I think that this would constitute a private contract for services rendered and I'm not sure the state has a compelling interest other than regulating the providers. I think the same would hold true for auto insurance. I think you should be able to show financial ability to cover liability in lieu of insurance if that is what you choose to do. I'm not sure whether the state really has a compelling interest in this other than a responsibility in civil court to adjudicate liability, if in dispute.
Personally i think that we should go with a single payer system for basic health care financed by a sales or VAT tax with the option to purchase supplemental insurance if one so chooses for services not covered by the basic plan. If you are going to promise universal health care, make it universal and provide the health care. I'm not sure why the pols think they need to protect the insurance companies, Maybe it's the benjamins.
-
Single payer is the way to go.
-
By all means.....YOU pay
-
By all means.....YOU pay
EVERYBODY PAYS, one way or another.
Even under the current system.
-
That's no excuse to mandate everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare. If Xo wants to be the single payer, or yourself, I embrace your sincerity and apparent boundless resources. And if you 2 work together, you can split the cost even
-
Judging by your reply, one could easily surmise that you do not know what a single payer system is.
-
That's no excuse to mandate everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare.
XO just wants the producers to cover the non-producers that smoke and
dont exercise...ya know the ones that decide they'd rather have a flat screen
and a new car than insurance. Botton line is basically XO wants a big new welfare
program. It will turn out just like the gvt schools...shit results....but everybody
gettin 'em an edge-ya-mah-cation! ::) Got a health problem? Hey just walk
on in...or fly on in...and BOOM the gvt nanny will cover that cancer treatement
that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars....got a sick grandpa in 3rd world
fly 'em on in....get 'em in....crowd the system so others wait and wait and wait
and wait and wait and wait...and die.
-
I think if one chooses to not join an insurance pool and they seek medical attention they should be required to prove financial ability to pay for services rendered and if they can't they should be turned away. Choices have consequences.
"Insurance pool"?. Is this a "it takes a village" approach? I think if you purchase insurance, and you have coverage for X, and you have X done, it's payed for by insurance, regardless of your current "financial ability"
Personally i think that we should go with a single payer system for basic health care financed by a sales or VAT tax with the option to purchase supplemental insurance if one so chooses for services not covered by the basic plan.
Personally, I don't think I should have to pay for your healthcare insurance. I have enough to deal with on my own front, with the limited resources I have
If you are going to promise universal health care, make it universal and provide the health care.
a) I'm not the one promising it
b) it's not constitutional (hopely to be reaffirmed by SCOTUS soon)
c) it's not the Government's responsibility to mandate that every tax payer provide health you insurance
So it's a bogus "promise" to begin with
Judging by your reply, one could easily surmise that you do not know what a single payer system is.
It would be another erroneous summation, but then again, you've had several with this current trend of "thought exercise"
-
That's no excuse to mandate everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare.
XO just wants the producers to cover the non-producers that smoke and
dont exercise...ya know the ones that decide they'd rather have a flat screen
and a new car than insurance. Botton line is basically XO wants a big new welfare
program. It will turn out just like the gvt schools...shit results....but everybody
gettin 'em an edge-ya-mah-cation! ::) Got a health problem? Hey just walk
on in...or fly on in...and BOOM the gvt nanny will cover that cancer treatement
that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars....got a sick grandpa in 3rd world
fly 'em on in....get 'em in....crowd the system so others wait and wait and wait
and wait and wait and wait...and die.
That's the beauty of funding it with sales (VAT) tax. No one slips through the cracks. If you buy something you are paying a healthcare premium at the same time. You buy a flat screen TV, voila, you also pay for that doctors visit. We don't have anything that currently captures participants in the underground economy. This method captures them all. Crack dealers, prostitutes, day laborers working for cash. They all buy stuff.
Employers wouldn't need to offer health benefits unless they want to offer a supplemental plan. Employees would take home more pay because their employers aren't paying health care.
-
"Insurance pool"?. Is this a "it takes a village" approach?
Kind of. When you buy insurance you are joining an insurance pool. Do you understand how insurance works?
-
It would be another erroneous summation, but then again, you've had several with this current trend of "thought exercise"
Really? Please explain to the class what a single payer system is.
-
b) it's not constitutional (hopely to be reaffirmed by SCOTUS soon)
Is Medicare constitutional?
-
b) it's not constitutional (hopely to be reaffirmed by SCOTUS soon)
Is Medicare constitutional?
Shouldn't be. I'll look forward to SCOTUS decision on this one, and we can put this to rest
It would be another erroneous summation, but then again, you've had several with this current trend of "thought exercise"
Really? Please explain to the class what a single payer system is.
EVERYONE, with an emphasis on EVERYONE, pays into a fund via fee/tax, and 1 entity, the Government (i.e. the tax payers) are billed and pays for everyone's healthcare, via that fund. Which in this case is likely the same as SS, meaning, it just goes into the general fund, no lockbox
"Insurance pool"?. Is this a "it takes a village" approach?
Kind of.
Thanks, for the honesty
Do you understand how insurance works?
By design, Yep. Every minute detail, no
-
That's no excuse to mandate everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare.
XO just wants the producers to cover the non-producers that smoke and
dont exercise...ya know the ones that decide they'd rather have a flat screen
and a new car than insurance. Botton line is basically XO wants a big new welfare
program. It will turn out just like the gvt schools...shit results....but everybody
gettin 'em an edge-ya-mah-cation! ::) Got a health problem? Hey just walk
on in...or fly on in...and BOOM the gvt nanny will cover that cancer treatement
that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars....got a sick grandpa in 3rd world
fly 'em on in....get 'em in....crowd the system so others wait and wait and wait
and wait and wait and wait...and die.
That's the beauty of funding it with sales (VAT) tax. No one slips through the cracks. If you buy something you are paying a healthcare premium at the same time. You buy a flat screen TV, voila, you also pay for that doctors visit.
And you pay for someone ELSE's Dr's visit. Yea, let's just add on more taxes, that's the ticket
-
EVERYONE, with an emphasis on EVERYONE, pays into a fund via fee/tax, and 1 entity, the Government (i.e. the tax payers) are billed and pays for everyone's healthcare, via that fund. Which in this case is likely the same as SS, meaning, it just goes into the general fund, no lockbox
Medicare is a single payer system. Does everybody pay into it?
-
And you pay for someone ELSE's Dr's visit. Yea, let's just add on more taxes, that's the ticket
When you buy medical insurance those premiums go into a pool and from that pool someone ( if they belong to the plan) elses Dr. visit is paid for from those funds.
If you have insurance with a major carrier, as we speak, you are paying for someone elses medical care.
So what is different?
-
That's the beauty of funding it with sales (VAT) tax. No one slips through the cracks.
As is always the case, the truth is in the details.
It depends what you are going to fund with a sales tax.
If you are going to fund full "everything is covered" sniffles to cancer for everyone including illegals.
Then that sales tax will eventually be enormous.
If you are just going to fund catastrophic care then it might be doable.
I think the best form of health insurance is some kind of medical savings account.
With medical savings account reality of costs are brought to bare.
Any system that allows patients to not care at all about costs is just not reality.
And ends up being extremely costly which in turn causes health care rationing.
The patient needs to be aware of costs and have incentives to lower costs.
Medical savings accounts do some of this.
I actually might support a law requiring health insurance
if you have it...you are exempt
if you dont have it....then your paycheck is garnished...like a tax.
-
EVERYONE, with an emphasis on EVERYONE, pays into a fund via fee/tax, and 1 entity, the Government (i.e. the tax payers) are billed and pays for everyone's healthcare, via that fund. Which in this case is likely the same as SS, meaning, it just goes into the general fund, no lockbox
Medicare is a single payer system. Does everybody pay into it?
Every worker who pays taxes, with the government being the single payer, using those tax dollars to pay for it. I love that you used Medicare....a system being crushed financially, will be unable to sustain itself without drastic cuts and/or massive tax increases, and a mere fraction of what Cash for Croakers will wroght upon us
And you pay for someone ELSE's Dr's visit. Yea, let's just add on more taxes, that's the ticket
When you buy medical insurance those premiums go into a pool and from that pool someone ( if they belong to the plan) elses Dr. visit is paid for from those funds.
ITS OPTIONAL BT. FOLKS AREN'T BEING MADE TO BUY MEDICAL INSURANCE. It's irrelevent how a pool works, that's never been the issue. That's the proverbial strawman
If you have insurance with a major carrier, as we speak, you are paying for someone elses medical care. So what is different?
CHOICE!!
-
If you are going to fund full "everything is covered" sniffles to cancer for everyone including illegals.
I think i addressed that already.
I could see where flu treatment would be covered but in vitro fertilization wouldn't in the base plan. Catastrophic illnesses, like cancer treatments or cardio proceedures would be covered. Broken legs would be covered, plastic surgery wouldn't.
Things like BC pills and viagra could be covered under a supplemental plan much like the supplementals that go with medicare.
I understand your concern about illegals which is why a sales tax is a good idea, because even illegals buy stuff.
The whole idea is to increase the size of the pool.
Even with medicare only employed people on the books contribute, there has to be a better way to capture the others.
And think what the savings would be to a small business. Their employees are taken care of, but the owner doesn't shoulder the entire burden.
-
CHOICE!!
You get to choose whose bills are paid with your premium?
-
I get to choose if I want insurance or not. Maybe I'm really healthy and don't want any. Maybe I'm financially stable and can pay as I go. Maybe I'm inbetween jobs. I'm a far better steward of my money, than the Government is, despite how noble your intentions are
-
I get to choose if I want insurance or not. Maybe I'm really healthy and don't want any. Maybe I'm financially stable and can pay as I go. Maybe I'm inbetween jobs. I'm a far better steward of my money, than the Government is, despite how noble your intentions are
Yes but once that choice is made, you don't get to decide how your premiums are spent. And if you self insure or pay as you go you are still paying for others as the losses from other peoples failure to pay is built into your charges. That's why aspirin costs $10 a pill in the hospital.
-
I get to choose if I want insurance or not. Maybe I'm really healthy and don't want any. Maybe I'm financially stable and can pay as I go. Maybe I'm inbetween jobs. I'm a far better steward of my money, than the Government is, despite how noble your intentions are
Yes but once that choice is made, you don't get to decide how your premiums are spent.
Irrelevent
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1215cd20101214074856.jpg)
-
Irrelevent
Is that a synonym for you don't have a valid rebuttal?
-
No, it's a synonym for strawman.
I don't know what's this hang up you have with the pools. You think, despite my consistent references to the contrary, that I still don't grasp how insurance companies works?? How single payer works?? That's not at issue here.
CHOICE of deciding what or if you wish to have insured, as it relates to one's own health, it at issue.
PEOPLE having a better grasp of how to spend their own hard earned money, as it relates to one's own healthcare, is at issue
GOVERNMENT having no business dictating how I'm to take care of myself, via my healthcare choices, is at issue
CONSTITUTION providing no authority for Government to mandate that I must have health insurance, is at issue.
How pools work, is a non-issue, since no one is claiming insurance companies don't pool their VOLUNTARY funds
-
Apparently government does have an interest in your healthcare as evidenced by the constitutionality of both medicare and medicaid.
BTW do you have an uninsured motorist rider on your auto policy?
-
Apparently government does have an interest in your healthcare as evidenced by the constitutionality of both medicare and medicaid.
2 systems, both going broke, both imploding with the weight of the financial burden they've become, and both a mere fraction of what Obamacare will undoubtedly bring
So, if SCOTUS rules in my favor, what then?
BTW do you have an uninsured motorist rider on your auto policy?
Once again, irrelevent, though to answer your question, IIRC, I do believe we CHOSE such a rider. Government's mandate is liability only, for damage/injury to someone ELSE
-
So, if SCOTUS rules in my favor, what then?
Obviously i will demonize my opponents and claim that Scotus is nothing but a group of 9 who rule based are partisan leanings and have not a concern in the world for what the founders intended, by their inclusion of the promote the general welfare clause.
2 systems, both going broke, both imploding with the weight of the financial burden they've become, and both a mere fraction of what Obamacare will undoubtedly bring
Their fiscal condition is irrevelant to whether govt has an interest in the nations health as it does in their interest in making sure its citizens have the financial means to compensate for accidents if they are found liable.
-
I don't know what's this hang up you have with the pools. You think, despite my consistent references to the contrary, that I still don't grasp how insurance companies works?? How single payer works?? That's not at issue here.
The larger the pool the less the risk to the insurance company. Theoretically that should result in lowered premiums. You can't get a larger pool than the entire population of these United States.
-
LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS:
Definition:
* The theory of probability on which the business of insurance is based. Simply put, this mathematical premise says that the larger the group of units insured, such as sport-utility vehicles, the more accurate the predictions of loss will be.
Information provided by Insurance Information Institute (http://www.iii.org/)
-
The larger the pool the less the risk to the insurance company. Theoretically
that should result in lowered premiums. You can't get a larger pool than the
entire population of these United States.
But at what cost?
Somebody broke running to the doctor with sniffles all the time
That doesn't go now because it isn't "free"
The system is going to see an explosion of patients.
Almost half of all US households dont pay any US income tax.
Where is the money going to come from that will support the patient explosion?
It doesn't matter how big the pool is.
-
Which is why you fund it with sales tax. Everybody buys something.
But really the challenge isn't to shoot down ideas. The challenge is to come up with a solution to a properly defined problem that everyone can live with.
And that just may take thinking outside the box and outside dogmatic comfort zones.
So is there a healthcare problem in the United States? Is it affordable? Can we do better?
If so how?
-
So, if SCOTUS rules in my favor, what then?
Obviously i will demonize my opponents and claim that Scotus is nothing but a group of 9 who rule based are partisan leanings and have not a concern in the world for what the founders intended, by their inclusion of the promote the general welfare clause.
Well, at least you're honest
I don't know what's this hang up you have with the pools. You think, despite my consistent references to the contrary, that I still don't grasp how insurance companies works?? How single payer works?? That's not at issue here.
The larger the pool the less the risk to the insurance company. Theoretically that should result in lowered premiums. You can't get a larger pool than the entire population of these United States.
Nor can you get more inefficient. And realistically vs theoretically, and as history is demonstrating, premuims have been going up with these so called larger pools
2 systems, both going broke, both imploding with the weight of the financial burden they've become, and both a mere fraction of what Obamacare will undoubtedly bring
Their fiscal condition is irrevelant......
No, it's not. It's PRECISELY why the mere notion that Government can run a UHC for EVERYONE, given the prime examples of their "dabbling" in far smaller bits, is so egregious. The constitution wasn't put in place for Government to function with noble intentions. It was a blue print, a rules book, on how Government is supposed to function. And there is no authority what-so-ever that they mandate we have our own health insurance. Add to that the fiscal wreck the far lesser programs of Medicare and Medicaid should be the deal breaker
-
But really the challenge isn't to shoot down ideas. The challenge is to come up with a solution to a properly defined problem that everyone can live with.
1st and foremost, axe any notion of a Government run healthcare program and Government mandates that everyone must have health insurance
Now, where can we go from there? Serious, I'm game to start considering other proposals, to actively function in pushing something we can all live with
-
But really the challenge isn't to shoot down ideas.
The challenge is to come up with a solution to a properly defined problem that everyone can live with.
So is there a healthcare problem in the United States? Is it affordable? Can we do better? If so how?
And admit there may not always be a "one size fits all solution"
just so we can pretend everybody's equal like the leftist pretend.
You dont bring everyone down to make everyone equal.
I think this guy who has actually done something,
created jobs, built something, balanced a budget
without a printing press has very good ideas that
would help solve a huge chunk of the problem.
And this guy is by no means some rightwinger.
(http://www.admediapartners.com/images/newsLogo_The_Wall_Street_Journal.gif)
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.
August 11, 2009
By JOHN MACKEY
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care?to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly?they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear?no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.?or in any other country.
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending?heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity?are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)
-
Nor can you get more inefficient. And realistically vs theoretically, and as history is demonstrating, premuims have been going up with these so called larger pools
You'll have to provide a reputable source that claims the larger the pool the greater the inefficiencies.
Premiums may be going up, but where do you get that it is a result of larger pool? again i'd like a source for that claim.
-
You'll have to provide a reputable source that claims the larger the pool the greater the inefficiencies.
what do you mean by "inefficiencies"?
-
Is the whole foods approach something you would offer to your employees?
-
You'll have to provide a reputable source that claims the larger the pool the greater the inefficiencies.
what do you mean by "inefficiencies"?
That was addressed to sirs. it was his claim. Hopefully he can define and elaborate on it.
-
Nor can you get more inefficient. And realistically vs theoretically, and as history is demonstrating, premiums have been going up with these so called larger pools
You'll have to provide a reputable source that claims the larger the pool the greater the inefficiencies.
I give you the Federal Government. Currently the Federal paperwork requirement in the Home Health industry mandates a 10+page evaluation, referred to as OAISIS, that requires a minimum of 2 hours to fill out, that has multiple redundancies built into the evaluation, and a requirement that the admitting PT also function as Nurse, Social Worker, and Occupational Therapist. This is an example of the egregious inefficiency of the federal government on a mere microscopic level, compared to UHC.
Premiums may be going up, but where do you get that it is a result of larger pool? again i'd like a source for that claim.
What "larger" Insurance companies, with their bigger pools are demonstrating a decline in their premiums?
-
I give you the Federal Government. Currently the Federal paperwork requirement in the Home Health industry mandates a 10+page evaluation, referred to as OAISIS, that requires a minimum of 2 hours to fill out, that has multiple redundancies built into the evaluation, and a requirement that the admitting PT also function as Nurse, Social Worker, and Occupational Therapist. This is an example of the egregious inefficiency of the federal government on a mere microscopic level, compared to UHC.
And that has what to do with the number of participants in an insurance plan?
What "larger" Insurance companies, with their bigger pools are demonstrating a decline in their premiums?
I don't know of any but i do know per CU's example that some insurance companies are offering more flexible plans at a reduced cost.
Insurance companies may raise their premiums for a number of reasons, perhaps you can show that the increase in customer base is the primary reason.
-
I give you the Federal Government. Currently the Federal paperwork requirement in the Home Health industry mandates a 10+page evaluation, referred to as OAISIS, that requires a minimum of 2 hours to fill out, that has multiple redundancies built into the evaluation, and a requirement that the admitting PT also function as Nurse, Social Worker, and Occupational Therapist. This is an example of the egregious inefficiency of the federal government on a mere microscopic level, compared to UHC.
And that has what to do with the number of participants in an insurance plan?
It has to do with the egregious inefficiency of who you want to place this "pool" with
What "larger" Insurance companies, with their bigger pools are demonstrating a decline in their premiums?
I don't know of any
Well, there ya go
-
It has to do with the egregious inefficency of who you want to place this "pool" with
You do realize the government does not have to be the entity that manages the single pay system, don't you?
Quote from: BT on Today at 06:54:44 PM
Quote
What "larger" Insurance companies, with their bigger pools are demonstrating a decline in their premiums?
I don't know of any
Well, there ya go
hmm you seem to have left off the rest of my statement
let me post it so that those interested in honest debate can read it:
I don't know of any but i do know per CU's example that some insurance companies are offering more flexible plans at a reduced cost.
-
It has to do with the egregious inefficency of who you want to place this "pool" with
You do realize the government does not have to be the entity that manages the single pay system, don't you?
You do realize that the Government will not let that happen, don't you? Show me just 1 quote from a UHC advocate that is advocating someone other that the Government manage a Single Pay system?
Quote from: BT on Today at 06:54:44 PM
Quote
What "larger" Insurance companies, with their bigger pools are demonstrating a decline in their premiums?
I don't know of any
Well, there ya go
hmm you seem to have left off the rest of my statement
I left off the incidental reference and focused on the answer to my question
let me post it so that those interested in honest debate can read it:
I don't know of any but i do know per CU's example that some insurance companies are offering more flexible plans at a reduced cost.
Now you'd have to actually demonstrate that those "some" companies' reduced cost plans were directly related to your theoretical bigger pool. That is what you're trying to push with your pool obsession
-
Now you'd have to actually demonstrate that those "some" companies' reduced cost plans were directly related to your theoretical bigger pool.
My guess is that they offered those flexible plans in order to grow their market share and thus enlarge their pool.
Not sure why you think growing market share is a bad thing or why you want to label it an obsession of mine. Perhaps you don't do a lot of work with private sector insurance companies.
-
Now you'd have to actually demonstrate that those "some" companies' reduced cost plans were directly related to your theoretical bigger pool.
My guess is that they offered those flexible plans in order to grow their market share and thus enlarge their pool.
Interesting guess, so in other words, it wasn't the larger pool that helped to reduce costs
Not sure why you think growing market share is a bad thing or why you want to label it an obsession of mine.
Never said it was a bad thing, and you're the one that keeps bring it up as something relevent. That's your obsession. Mine is the issue of the Government running said pool, and the mandates they bring with it
Perhaps you don't do a lot of work with private sector insurance companies.
Sure wouldn't be the 1st time you were wrong with a conclusion about me
-
Interesting guess, so in other words, it wasn't the larger pool that helped to reduce costs
The lower costs were associated with the higher deductible. The higher deductible theoretically added an increased customer base and thus enlarged the pool. Business 101
Never said it was a bad thing, and you're the one that keeps bring it up as something relevent. That's your obsession. Mine is the issue of the Government running said pool, and the mandates they bring with it
And yet your example was of government inefficiencies and a single payer system does not have to be administered by the government.
Sure wouldn't be the 1st time you were wrong with a conclusion about me
Perhaps you can share a comparison of govt vs private sector intake procedures.
-
Is the whole foods approach something you would offer to your employees?
It is something that we would definitely listen to very intently.
I am a huge fan of medical savings accounts.
Because they bring an aspect of REALITY to the table.
What other part of life do you go in & get expensive services & never even ask how much something costs?
That is lunacy. Patients should be encouraged to be interested in pricing...and even shop around.
It sounds as though Whole Foods incorporates aspects of medical savings accounts into their coverages.
BT we have looked at these kinds of options, but not that seriously yet.
Believe it or not our Blue Cross premiums have remained pretty steady the last 2 years.
Insurance people tell us (before ObamaCare) that medical savings accounts are the wave of the future.
But we didn't want to be the guinea pig so to speak.
I would like to head in that direction.
-
And yet your example was of government inefficiencies and a single payer system
does not have to be administered by the government.
BT can you name a single payer national healthcare that is not?
I mean are there examples of non-government administered around the world?
I honestly dont know?
-
Medicare claims processing is outsourced.
-
You keep trying to make this about the state having some vested interest analogus to mandating car insurance. I'm demonstrating how its not. Not even close
Just to be clear.
You don't have a problem with the state mandating insurance if you are to register and operate a vehicle on public roads?
The state mandate is only for operators of cars , would you want the state to mandate auto insurance for evereyone even if they were not using cars?
-
2 systems, both going broke, both imploding with the weight of the financial burden they've become, and both a mere fraction of what Obamacare will undoubtedly bring
Their fiscal condition is irrevelant to whether govt has an interest in the nations health as it does in their interest in making sure its citizens have the financial means to compensate for accidents if they are found liable.
The fiscal condition of Medicare is a good experimental result , whether the Government has an intrest or not we havent ansered the question of whether the Goverbnment is competant for the task.
-
I agree that the govt hasn't done a good job managing medicare. It is underfunded. But the government is not the entity perpetuating the massive fraud that is a major part of the problem. That would be the private sector.
-
I agree that the govt hasn't done a good job managing medicare. It is underfunded. But the government is not the entity perpetuating the massive fraud that is a major part of the problem. That would be the private sector.
Fraud will not be a problem in the same sort of way in a larger system?
-
Fraud will not be a problem in the same sort of way in a larger system?
I'm sure fraud would exist in a larger system. Fraud exists in the military industrial complex too. Human nature being what it is.
-
The veterans administration and medicare are managed with less fraud than other government entities. There is some degree of fraud in almost any venture, private or public
-
Interesting guess, so in other words, it wasn't the larger pool that helped to reduce costs
The lower costs were associated with the higher deductible. The higher deductible theoretically added an increased customer base and thus enlarged the pool. Business 101
"theory aside", your a did not beget b, which was your original claim. it was merely a happenstance
Never said it was a bad thing, and you're the one that keeps bring it up as something relevent. That's your obsession. Mine is the issue of the Government running said pool, and the mandates they bring with it
And yet your example was of government inefficiencies and a single payer system does not have to be administered by the government.
And you have yet to provide an example of a single payer healthcare system NOT being run by Government, nor any politician advocating an entity outside of Government in managing a single payer healthcare system
Sure wouldn't be the 1st time you were wrong with a conclusion about me
Perhaps you can share a comparison of govt vs private sector intake procedures.
Apparently I needed to clarify that I'm not an insurance adjuster or work for an insurance company. Your original erroneous implication was simply in reference to my "work" with private insurance companies, which I do, frequently, as a Physical Therapist. If you want detailed minutia, privy to the knowledge base of those either in the insurance business or have time to google, by all means, google away
-
But really the challenge isn't to shoot down ideas. The challenge is to come up with a solution to a properly defined problem that everyone can live with.
1st and foremost, axe any notion of a Government run healthcare program and Government mandates that everyone must have health insurance
Now, where can we go from there? Serious, I'm game to start considering other proposals, to actively function in pushing something we can all live with
Was there no ideas to start bouncing with?
-
"theory aside", your a did not beget b, which was your original claim. it was merely a happenstance
I just used the SIRs theorum of janitorial hirings as the basis for my hypothesis. They wouldn't do it if it negatively impacted their bottom line. The bottom line is affected by the amount of risk. Risk is mitigated with a larger pool
And you have yet to provide an example of a single payer healthcare system NOT being run by Government, nor any politician advocating an entity outside of Government in managing a single payer healthcare system
Medicare claims processing is outsourced. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/unconstitutional!-can-we-have-our-$1-trillion-back-now/msg114946/#msg114946) Blue Cross Blue Shield is one such subcontractor.
Was there no ideas to start bouncing with?
You refused to think outside the box. CU did. You can follow his submissions.
-
Oh I see...."outside the box" MUST require government intervention and some form of UHC. How convenient
And sad......for this country
-
Oh I see...."outside the box" MUST require government intervention and some form of UHC. How convenient
No. "Outside the box" means having an open mind.
-
I guess you must have missed the part of "I'm game to start considering other proposals, to actively function in pushing something we can all live with"
Hardly close minded, than again not surprising this tact of yours, as of late
-
Hardly close minded, than again not surprising this tact of yours, as of late
how can you claim open mindedness when you immediately narrow the scope of the thought exercise?
-
Easily.....it's like being pro choice of anything, except the choice of abortion. Ample areas of discussion and advancement of ideas, to solve perceived problems. The "narrow mind" is the one that insists that Government must be a part of any "solution"
-
The "narrow mind" is the one that insists that Government must be a part of any "solution"
Where did I insist that?
-
Apparently when my serious request for other ideas outside of the Governmental box were seen as close minded
-
So i didn't say it.
Glad we cleared that up.
-
BT...I have a question....why when you use the quotation feature do you leave off the name
of who you are quoting? I wish you wouldn't do that because it makes it easier to follow when
people can see who made the original quote....but it's your decision....and i just wondered
why you choose to do that?
-
BT...I have a question....why when you use the quotation feature do you leave off the name
of who you are quoting? I wish you wouldn't do that because it makes it easier to follow when
people can see who made the original quote....but it's your decision....and i just wondered
why you choose to do that?
Good question. I can see how people could lose track of who said what.
-
So i didn't say it. Glad we cleared that up.
That would be a negative, since you have yet to clarify yourself. I requested some non-Govenmental suggestions and was met with some refusal to think "outside the box". What's left?.... is the deduction that "outside of the box" requires Government intervention. At least most rationally minded folks would come to that conclusion. So, did you "say it"? no. Did you definately imply it?, that would be an affirmative
But let's put my deduction to the test.....What say you? You have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem in this country?? That's what the original query you tried to shoot down was all about
-
I find it counter productive to constantly have to deal with your misrepresentations. If i didn't say it, don't say I did.
-
And an example of just 1 misrepresentation would be.......? Perhaps I should apply the phrase Is that a synonym for you don't have a valid rebuttal? You're pleading the 5th?
This is a debate forum, Bt. If you can't make yourself clear to the patrons, you clarify yourself. My lastest inquiry had nothing to do with misrpresenting you in the least. If you found yourself getting boxed in, that's your own fault. I demonstrated precisely how you did not say x, but have been implying x all along. Then even provided you an out for demonstrating how my deduction could be wrong
So, we can either entertain non-existant misrepresentations that effectively takes the spotlight off the question at hand, or we can actually debate the question at hand. Your call
So....... Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country??
-
....... Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country??
Hmmmm...
Can a person opt out ?
Can a Doctor opt out?
Couold a Doctor start a subscription service ?
If you paid a Doctor a monthly fee to keep him on retainder starting while you are healthy , the doctor would have steady income and steady work, he would be makeing himself an insurance company small scale.
-
What's left?.... is the deduction that "outside of the box" requires Government intervention.
What's left is that all options are on the table. Public, private or some combination thereof.
But that is not the issue. The real issue is that you constantly claim i said something that i clearly did not. Else you could easily provide a quote. And you haven't.
Now let's be clear, if you say i said something and i haven't that is misrepresenting my position. And seeing how strongly you feel about people misrepresenting your positions, i am surprised that you take such a cavalier attitude when you do the same.
-
....... Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country??
Hmmmm...
Can a person opt out ?
Can a Doctor opt out?
Couold a Doctor start a subscription service ?
If you paid a Doctor a monthly fee to keep him on retainder starting while you are healthy , the doctor would have steady income and steady work, he would be makeing himself an insurance company small scale.
Opt out of........?
I like the idea of keeping a Dr. with a retainer, kinda like an attorney. But is that based on our current Healthcare system, pre-Cash for Croakers?
I think the Subscription service has too many nefarious holes built in, be it fraud or conflict of interest issues
-
....... Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country??
Hmmmm...
Can a person opt out ?
Can a Doctor opt out?
Couold a Doctor start a subscription service ?
If you paid a Doctor a monthly fee to keep him on retainder starting while you are healthy , the doctor would have steady income and steady work, he would be makeing himself an insurance company small scale.
Opt out of........?
I like the idea of keeping a Dr. with a retainer, kinda like an attorney. But is that based on our current Healthcare system, pre-Cash for Croakers?
I think the Subscription service has too many nefarious holes built in, be it fraud or conflict of interest issues
Do you need a government monitor to prevent fraud?
-
What's left?.... is the deduction that "outside of the box" requires Government intervention.
What's left is that all options are on the table. Public, private or some combination thereof.
So, one last time......Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country?? That means, the ones don't include the Government. Because otherwise, Government must be part of your solution, which ironically then debunks any claim of misrepresentation
But that is not the issue. The real issue is that you constantly claim i said something that i clearly did not. Else you could easily provide a quote. And you haven't.
And I consistently demonstrated that the implication has been quite clear despite you not having said x. Even gave you an out to demonstrate how I was wrong. And what do we get?......Did we get to debate on the question/issue at hand, thus debunking my deduction? Nope, Bt seems to have chosen to entertain non-existant misrepresentations that effectively takes the spotlight off the question/issue at hand
Well, I did say it was his call
Now let's be clear, if you say i said something and i haven't that is misrepresenting my position. And seeing how strongly you feel about people misrepresenting your positions, i am surprised that you take such a cavalier attitude when you do the same.
Difference is I was able to demonstrate x.
-
Do you need a government monitor to prevent fraud?
That's a really good question. The problem is both Government and Private ogranzations can be corrupted. So, is one more able to be not corrupted? Or more transparent? Some form of Indep commission perhaps, but who would put it together...Government?
Have to do some "thought exercise" on this one
-
Difference is I was able to demonstrate x.
Then you should be able to provide a quote. Waiting...
-
A) the x was in demonstrating how you've misrepresented me previously. Sorry, I should have used y. My bad
B) what part of consistently demonstrated that the implication has been quite clear despite you not having said x are you having trouble with? There is no direct Bt quote of "I support the government providing UHC". The implication though has been with the continued defense of Governmental policies and attempts to run healthcare with their "bigger pools"
C) Bt seems to have chosen to entertain non-existant misrepresentations that effectively takes the spotlight off the question/issue at hand
-
The implication has been with the continued defense of Governmental policies and attempts to run healthcare with their "bigger pools"
You obviously do not understand what i mean by larger pools.
You obviously do not understand the law or large numbers as it applies to insurance companies.
You obviously do not understand
What's left is that all options are on the table. Public, private or some combination thereof.
What you do apparently do believe is that if you read something into someones words then your reading is correct, no matter the intentions of the author. Perception trumps intent in your world.
So it would be impossible for you to misrepresent someones postings because your perception is your reality, and it doesn't matter what is written what matters is what you read.
Which makes debating you counterproductive. There is no common language.
-
The implication has been with the continued defense of Governmental policies and attempts to run healthcare with their "bigger pools"
You obviously do not understand what i mean by larger pools.
And you are obviously having a hard time addressing the issue, since I know exactly the "theory" behind the larger pools. So, let's try again.... Do you have some outside of the box non governmental suggesstions to the perceived healthcare problem(s) in this country??
Yes, with some pertinent examples debunks my deductions
No or continued entertaining of non-existant misrepresentations, validates them
-
Yes
Switch health insurance from groups to individuals, much like auto insurance is sold.
Change the restrictions on state regulations for health insurance companies so that interstate companies can compete with intrastate companies.
Of course those suggestions require government action, so i guess they would not qualify.
Pity.
-
They would so long as Government isn't managing, running, billing, or paying for it.
Now, how that took this long following the 1st time asked, is beyond me. And if you state that my question was no government intervention, you could have asked for clarification or if your suggestions are doable under the parameters I'd be willing to debate, in which case I would have provided the above
Pity
-
They would so long as Government isn't managing, running, billing, or paying for it.
Now, how that took this long following the 1st time asked, is beyond me. And if you state that my question was no government intervention, you could have asked for clarification or if your suggestions are doable under the parameters I'd be willing to debate, in which case I would have provided the above
Pity
Oh I see...."outside the box" MUST require government intervention ...
if your suggestions are doable under the parameters I'd be willing to debate
your participation is optional, and i don't see where with your optional participation you get to set the parameters.
I'll be glad to discuss ideas presented by other members with less rigid frameworks.
-
Amazing how rigidity is merely that the Government isn't running things or paying for it. Pity for those who are stuck "out of the box"