Looks Like ANY Public Option is DOA YES!!!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Plenty has been offered. Only two things can stop you from seeing that. Either your eyes and mind are closed or you cant read.

I asked you for link several times. Is it that hard to provide a link to your post, where a constructive approach was offered?

I dont need a link.

Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums.
Open up state boarder to all offered insurance providers. This will increase competition and allow people to choose plans they want and that they can afford

only if

State mandates of specific coverages are eliminated

Today there are a over 1000 insurance companies providing HC coverage. CA for example has access to about 6 and to boot, CA has near the most mandated coverages.

I have posted this before, as have others. I cant help it if you don't like it but that does not mean alternatives have not been provided. Fuck man, a thread was started specifically for this topic. YOU READ IT?????

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Here is a link if that is all that counts

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3695931;#3695931

Have you seen it?

Hell yes you did!!!!

Post 42 of the thread is a reply from you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

"the bill sucks, but we're not offering anything either"

Do you really believe that, or are you just spouting the party line?

GOP Healthcare Bill.

I'm really tired of hearing "those guys aren't putting forth any ideas" because it's just a blatant lie.

Of course, if you want to push that lie, you need to tie up the alternative bill in committee instead of debating it.

Once again, just to repeat:

The assertion that the GOP is not putting forth an alternative healthcare plan is a flat out lie. HR 3400 is their alternative.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"the bill sucks, but we're not offering anything either"

Do you really believe that, or are you just spouting the party line?

GOP Healthcare Bill.

I'm really tired of hearing "those guys aren't putting forth any ideas" because it's just a blatant lie.

Of course, if you want to push that lie, you need to tie up the alternative bill in committee instead of debating it.

Once again, just to repeat:

The assertion that the GOP is not putting forth an alternative healthcare plan is a flat out lie. HR 3400 is their alternative.

As is the lie that there have been no alternatives here. As the link to the thread you started and he replied to shows about your reply

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I dont need a link.
Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums.

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller.

Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them?

Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there).

Quote

Open up state boarder to all offered insurance providers. This will increase competition and allow people to choose plans they want and that they can afford

This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it.

Quote

State mandates of specific coverages are eliminated

There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages.

Quote

Today there are a over 1000 insurance companies providing HC coverage. CA for example has access to about 6 and to boot, CA has near the most mandated coverages.

And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans.

Quote

I have posted this before, as have others. I cant help it if you don't like it but that does not mean alternatives have not been provided.

I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address:

- People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted);

- People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it);

You only address part of problem.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Do you really believe that, or are you just spouting the party line?
GOP Healthcare Bill.

The Republican version of the bill does not fix the most important issues (i.e. uninsured who cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and uninsured who can, but does not want to pay for insurance). There are also pieces which simply wouldn't work, like allowing everyone to shop for insurance on Internet, but without setting the federally maintained minimum (which means those companies will not be licensed in your state, and the situation will be exactly like it is now).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I dont need a link.
Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums.

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller.Ok, show me

Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them?Well, according to the latest earnings reports they should make more

Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). I dont care about Russia. different country. have you noticed?

Quote

Open up state boarder to all offered insurance providers. This will increase competition and allow people to choose plans they want and that they can afford

This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it.It is also about creating a situation where the gov would run them out of business. Unacceptable. Not even talking about the gov being involved to begin with

Quote

State mandates of specific coverages are eliminated

There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages.Which are just as bad or worse. The gov should have very little to do with the "choices" (your point earlier not mine) we have

Quote

Today there are a over 1000 insurance companies providing HC coverage. CA for example has access to about 6 and to boot, CA has near the most mandated coverages.

And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans.Because of state intervention, regulation and mandates

Quote

I have posted this before, as have others. I cant help it if you don't like it but that does not mean alternatives have not been provided.

I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address:

- People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted);

- People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it);

You only address part of problem.

I address more than you do and, AND, I point out the false assertions you have been making about alternatives now don't I!!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Do you really believe that, or are you just spouting the party line?
GOP Healthcare Bill.

The Republican version of the bill does not fix the most important issues (i.e. uninsured who cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and uninsured who can, but does not want to pay for insurance). There are also pieces which simply wouldn't work, like allowing everyone to shop for insurance on Internet, but without setting the federally maintained minimum (which means those companies will not be licensed in your state, and the situation will be exactly like it is now).

So you admit you lied about there being offered alternatives.

It is a start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

So, you don't like it, and therefore you ignore it's existence?

"I don't like the alternative they've offered" is a long way from "they haven't offered an alternative."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So you admit you lied about there being offered alternatives.

This is no more alternative than JohnRich's suggestion "just go to ER and do not pay". I asked for alternative _solution_ for the problem, not just some different opinion.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 3,114]

>But, for this post I want you to prove that the resistance to this is "a
>large part" of the debate.

Sure:

=============
HANNITY: So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?

LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question. . . . I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans.
. . .
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail.
==============
Jindal defends those who want Obama to fail
updated 3:37 a.m. EDT, Wed March 25, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night.
===============
LIMBAUGH: "The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it"
===============
From The Virtuous Republic, a conservative blog:

In either case, I stand with Limbaugh and want Obama to fail.

Why?

Obama is a socialist. But he is even worse. He is an eco-socialist. Not only does Obama believe in big government and high taxes, he wants to decrease your standard of living by increasing your energy bills for your house and your car. As our Founders knew from experience, excessive government is not compatible with freedom.

I want Obama to fail, because spending $780 billion on government itself will not create one job that actually produces something tangible.

I want Obama to fail because national health care will lessen my quality of care if Canada or Britain is any indication.

I want Obama to fail, because national health care means less choice (read freedom) for me.

I want Obama to fail because I do not want to pay for the mortgages of the irresponsible.

I want Obama to fail because he is blocking domestic oil drilling and that means oil prices will rise and his promise of “green” energy to replace oil is an empty promise he can’t deliver on.

I want Obama to fail because my middle class tax cut is $13 a week. That is a joke.

I want Obama to fail because his cap and trade program will destroy American business, increase energy prices, and in general the prices of all goods produced.

I want Obama to fail because his $1.5 trillion dollar deficit will destroy capital and depending upon circumstances, cause uncontrollable inflation or deflation.

I want Obama to fail, because in his heart, he views America and its freedoms as fundamentally flawed, a country that everyone should be ashamed of.

I want Obama to fail, because he sees Americans as part of groups rather than as individuals.
====================

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller.Ok, show me

Show you what? This is you who made the statement that tort reform will cut insurance premiums. Now prove it.

Quote

Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them?Well, according to the latest earnings reports they should make more

I do not care how much you think they should make. My question was different - why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits?

Quote

Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). I dont care about Russia. different country. have you noticed?

"Different country" is not an argument. Please address real arguments.

Quote

This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it.It is also about creating a situation where the gov would run them out of business. Unacceptable. Not even talking about the gov being involved to begin with

Somehow USPS didn't put UPS or FedEx out of business.
So far you're only speculating. Prove what you said.

Quote

There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages.
Which are just as bad or worse. The gov should have very little to do with the "choices" (your point earlier not mine) we have

Now who should? If you are in favor of interstate compatibility between insurance companies (which are now licensed on state level), someone have to ensure the coverage is the same. You're opposing setting them on federal level, and you're opposing setting them on state level (by disapproving state-mandated coverage). So who should set up those rules?

Quote

And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans.Because of state intervention, regulation and mandates

So you're saying state mandates are not ok. Federal mandates are apparently not ok either. Maybe we just let insurers decide what to cover? Then we'd have thousands of "insurance companies", none of which will cover hospitalization (too expensive), but they all would put it in contract in legaleze, so you wouldn't be able to understand what is covered, and what is not.

Quote

I address more than you do and, AND, I point out the false assertions you have been making about alternatives now don't I!!!!!

I'll repeat my question. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address:

- People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted);

- People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it);

You did NOT address any of those.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But, for this post I want you to prove that the resistance to this is "a
>large part" of the debate.

Sure:

=============
HANNITY: So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?

LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question. . . . I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans.
. . .
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail.
==============
Jindal defends those who want Obama to fail
updated 3:37 a.m. EDT, Wed March 25, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night.
===============
LIMBAUGH: "The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it"
===============
From The Virtuous Republic, a conservative blog:

In either case, I stand with Limbaugh and want Obama to fail.

Why?

Obama is a socialist. But he is even worse. He is an eco-socialist. Not only does Obama believe in big government and high taxes, he wants to decrease your standard of living by increasing your energy bills for your house and your car. As our Founders knew from experience, excessive government is not compatible with freedom.

I want Obama to fail, because spending $780 billion on government itself will not create one job that actually produces something tangible.

I want Obama to fail because national health care will lessen my quality of care if Canada or Britain is any indication.

I want Obama to fail, because national health care means less choice (read freedom) for me.

I want Obama to fail because I do not want to pay for the mortgages of the irresponsible.

I want Obama to fail because he is blocking domestic oil drilling and that means oil prices will rise and his promise of “green” energy to replace oil is an empty promise he can’t deliver on.

I want Obama to fail because my middle class tax cut is $13 a week. That is a joke.

I want Obama to fail because his cap and trade program will destroy American business, increase energy prices, and in general the prices of all goods produced.

I want Obama to fail because his $1.5 trillion dollar deficit will destroy capital and depending upon circumstances, cause uncontrollable inflation or deflation.

I want Obama to fail, because in his heart, he views America and its freedoms as fundamentally flawed, a country that everyone should be ashamed of.

I want Obama to fail, because he sees Americans as part of groups rather than as individuals.
====================

Proof?

All YOU need I guess.

Buy the way, while 1 agree with many of the quotes you list, (but the context you use them under is flawed) these in now way have anything to do with the resistance to the public option plans offered. Not the governments job. Never should be.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you admit you lied about there being offered alternatives.

This is no more alternative than JohnRich's suggestion "just go to ER and do not pay". I asked for alternative _solution_ for the problem, not just some different opinion.

Ah, so since you don't like them they are not viable alternatives. Only georgerussia's alternatives are acceptable. Everybody get that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller.Ok, show me

Show you what? This is you who made the statement that tort reform will cut insurance premiums. Now prove it.

Quote

Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them?Well, according to the latest earnings reports they should make more

I do not care how much you think they should make. My question was different - why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? Since they are now known publicaly to make LOW profits why would you want to lower them? They are not at an evil or obsessive level. WHY? (in other words the premise of you question is substantially flawed to begin with

Quote

Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). I dont care about Russia. different country. have you noticed?

"Different country" is not an argument. Please address real arguments.

Quote

This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it.It is also about creating a situation where the gov would run them out of business. Unacceptable. Not even talking about the gov being involved to begin with

Somehow USPS didn't put UPS or FedEx out of business.
So far you're only speculating. Prove what you said.No, but FedEx and UPS ARE putting the USPS out of business unless the gov covers the losses

Quote

There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages.
Which are just as bad or worse. The gov should have very little to do with the "choices" (your point earlier not mine) we have

Now who should? If you are in favor of interstate compatibility between insurance companies (which are now licensed on state level), someone have to ensure the coverage is the same. You're opposing setting them on federal level, and you're opposing setting them on state level (by disapproving state-mandated coverage). So who should set up those rules?Yes, exactly!!! Who should? Sure as hell not the government!

Quote

And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans.Because of state intervention, regulation and mandates

So you're saying state mandates are not ok. Correct!!! You get it!Federal mandates are apparently not ok either. Maybe we just let insurers decide what to cover?YES! In a free market they would do well to lower costs. You cant say that has been proven false because this in not what is happening today! Then we'd have thousands of "insurance companies", none of which will cover hospitalization (too expensive), but they all would put it in contract in legaleze, so you wouldn't be able to understand what is covered, and what is not.Bull shit extreme assertions. Who would buy this? Come on, you can and have done better than this

Quote

I address more than you do and, AND, I point out the false assertions you have been making about alternatives now don't I!!!!!

I'll repeat my question. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address:

- People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted);

- People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it);

You did NOT address any of those.

YOU are making the claims here. Anybody that goes to an ER today get care. Period! It is the law. I dont have to prove anything

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So, you don't like it, and therefore you ignore it's existence?

"I don't like the alternative they've offered" is a long way from "they haven't offered an alternative."

A polished turd is still a turd.
A turd referred to as an "alternative" is still a turd.

[TomAiello 26]

Again, the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less of an alternative.

Or, do you just want to see America fail? Is that it?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Lets looks at some different "examples" my friend.

1) What should be done about all the costs associated with those who go the the ER and really do not need to? Insured and un-insured. How much cost do you think these people add?

2) How about that those to go to the DR with a runny nose?

3) How about those un-insured who abuse themselves terribly but still expect ER treatment for their own stupidity?



I would submit that these are very big unreported costs today because even those who have insurance abuse the system for one reason or another.

Of course there are examples of insurance company abuses. And I am not saying a level of oversite or regulation is not needed. That is why there are state insurance boards in place.

But a whole sale gov take over would not make any of the issues you raise better. And in some of the examples the situation would be worse.

Lets fix what is broken not let the gov make it worse

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So, you don't like it, and therefore you ignore it's existence?

"I don't like the alternative they've offered" is a long way from "they haven't offered an alternative."

A polished turd is still a turd.
A turd referred to as an "alternative" is still a turd.

Finally, someone sees the gov option for what it really is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ah, so since you don't like them they are not viable alternatives.

The alternative is not viable because it does not look like it will work. One of the reasons may be that you didn't make any effort to explain how exactly would it work - i.e. how it would help to achieve the goal.

For example, if the goal is to reduce the number of non-paying patients in ER, then providing poor with government-sponsored healthcare is a viable alternative. Asking the poor to pray Jesus so they wouldn't get sick - is an alternative, but it is not viable alternative, because even people who pray Jesus still get sick and die from diseases.

Quote

Only georgerussia's alternatives are acceptable. Everybody get that?

Relax, mental services are covered by Obama's healthcare plan :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ah, so since you don't like them they are not viable alternatives.

The alternative is not viable because it does not look like it will work. One of the reasons may be that you didn't make any effort to explain how exactly would it work - i.e. how it would help to achieve the goal.

For example, if the goal is to reduce the number of non-paying patients in ER, then providing poor with government-sponsored healthcare is a viable alternative. Asking the poor to pray Jesus so they wouldn't get sick - is an alternative, but it is not viable alternative, because even people who pray Jesus still get sick and die from diseases.

Quote

Only georgerussia's alternatives are acceptable. Everybody get that?

Relax, mental services are covered by Obama's healthcare plan :)

I am relaxed cause it don't appear I will have to deal with that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Could you please use proper quoting? It becomes more difficult to understand who said what.

Quote

Show you what? This is you who made the statement that tort reform will cut insurance premiums. Now prove it.

I'm still looking for the proof.

Quote

Since they are now known publicaly to make LOW profits why would you want to lower them? They are not at an evil or obsessive level. WHY? (in other words the premise of you question is substantially flawed to begin with

You said that tort reform would lower healthcare costs because "reduced malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums". I asked a question: why would a business lower the insurance premium instead of keep it as before and just package more profit? You now seem to agree that they would indeed package the profit because it is low. So why would YOU want tort reform then, if it does not result in cut costs for consumers?

Quote

"Different country" is not an argument. Please address real arguments.

And I still wanna hear the arguments. You know, some people here in US already murdering doctors, just because they think the doctor did something immoral to someone else. Same people would likely to murder a doctor if they think the doctor did something wrong to their family member.

Quote

Somehow USPS didn't put UPS or FedEx out of business.
So far you're only speculating. Prove what you said.No, but FedEx and UPS ARE putting the USPS out of business unless the gov covers the losses

So now you're refuting your own point again? The private insurers would not be put out of business, but that's the public plan which would be?

Man, you need some consistency.

Quote

So who should set up those rules?
Yes, exactly!!! Who should? Sure as hell not the government!

But who? I'm looking for your answer. Hopefully you do not expect the insurance company to regulate yourself?

Quote

YES! In a free market they would do well to lower costs. You cant say that has been proven false because this in not what is happening today!

The problem with this approach is that there is no a single reason why a health insurance company would still want you covered once you get chronic disease. So a "free market" way to lower costs for them would be to kick you out as soon as you develop something which might need expensive treatment. They have collected your money once you were healthy, and now you're a liability for them. And of course no other insurance company would accept you either. Without regulations how exactly this would work? Who is going to pay for treatment of those people?

Quote

Bull shit extreme assertions. Who would buy this? Come on, you can and have done better than this

No, this is not extreme. Even now the businesses love to embed those "legal bombs" in the contracts in hope the customer won't read it with a lawyer, and then the company might escape the liability in the court. If there is no regulation, basically everyone can call themselves "health insurance company" and can sell plans.

Quote

YOU are making the claims here. Anybody that goes to an ER today get care. Period! It is the law. I dont have to prove anything

You still did not answer my question. Let me rephrase it.

There are following problems withing current healthcare system, which happen today, and are considered to have the biggest impact on the healthcare costs:

- People with pre-existing conditions. They cannot get health insurance, and your "alternative" does not include any provision for them. If you think they should have no coverage and just die, have balls and say it.

- People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it. Again, your "alternative" does not include any provision for them.

In both cases people just go to ER and do not pay; we pay for them, and our insurance premiums go up. What exactly do you suggest to prevent our insurance rates going up? Obama's plan addresses those issues. What about you?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

1) What should be done about all the costs associated with those who go the the ER and really do not need to? Insured and un-insured. How much cost do you think these people add?

For insured it's pretty simple - ER copay is significantly larger than Dr. office or the Urgent Care clinic (in my case it's something like $100 vs $10). This is pretty much a deterrent, together with the fact that you will get help much faster in an urgent care clinic.

For uninsured - provide them insurance, and they will have the incentive to go to a doctor office instead of ER.

Quote

2) How about that those to go to the DR with a runny nose?

No realistic solution. The only way to avoid it would be requiring everyone paying full cash for treatment, but this is not realistic solution. A running nose itself, however, does not require a lot of Dr's time.

I would be interested to hear if you have any realistic solutions.

Quote

3) How about those un-insured who abuse themselves terribly but still expect ER treatment for their own stupidity?

Like skydiving? Some people would also call it "abusing themselves".

But it should be the same - basically everyone should have insurance, and the ER should treat them.

Quote

I would submit that these are very big unreported costs today because even those who have insurance abuse the system for one reason or another.

Yes, of course. For example, my son has high fever and cough. Should I go to doctor, or not? It may be pneumonia (and then the faster I go, the better are his chances to recover), or it may be flu (and then he'd be fine himself in a few days). You can even go further and say most of the population "abuses" the system by going to the doctors with something which will heal in a few days without any treatment. But again, what realistically would you do?

Quote

Of course there are examples of insurance company abuses. And I am not saying a level of oversite or regulation is not needed. That is why there are state insurance boards in place.

How come? Didn't you just said that you are opposed to the government regulation, and the health insurance companies should just regulate themselves?

Quote

Lets fix what is broken not let the gov make it worse

The problem is that as soon as you try to fix something, you'll have a chain of things to fix. A simple example:

1. To cover people with pre-existing conditions you must require the people to maintain coverage (otherwise there is no reason to pay for the coverage until you need treatment - just apply on your way to ER).

2. To require everyone to have coverage you must provide penalties for those who does not want to (obviously), and you must provide credits for those who cannot afford it (so they can have it too, and won't be burden on ERs)

3. To provide credits for those who cannot afford the coverage, you need everyone applying for the assistance to submit financial details (otherwise a lot of people would just claim they cannot afford healthcare - after spending all the money on iPhones - and apply for it)

4. To make sure provided coverage meets minimal standards (i.e. covers hospitalization), and does not waste money on non-necessities (for example, it should not cover massages or chiropractor visits), you need to set up minimum standards. Since the credits are provided on federal level, the standards also need to be set on federal level (if you leave it to states, then some states will add non-necessities there; states can approve higher standards, but will have to cover the difference themselves).

5. To make sure provided coverage costs the same price in every state (i.e. people in one state do not unfairly subsidize others), the government has to set up some kind of "acceptable price". To prove that the price is acceptable, there should be providers willing to accept this price. Of course the government wants this price as low as possible, resulting in interstate exchange and public plans.

and so on. If you read the bill more than once, you basically see the whole chain there - how one item triggers a bunch of others.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Or, do you just want to see America fail? Is that it?

As long as I have my marinated kittens, I don't really care.

[mnealtx 0]

Maybe Obama can have everyone buy a GM car, or move their accounts to BoA...for the good of the country, of course.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706