Ron 10
QuoteConservatives claim the government likes to just give out money for anything and everything, yet now they are claiming if the government controls healthcare they will ration it and Grandma won't get that new liver to save her life. Why is it on one hand the right say the Dems want to spend spend spend but yet on the other they will all of a sudden not want to spend.
You seem to be reading the wrong Dem talking points. Conservatives know that the Govt has a history of running programs at either sub standard levels, or at extravagant cost.
And here is a good example of your Govt HC plan in action.
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/108540/married-couples-pay-more-than-unmarried-under-health-bill
QuoteFor an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 -- a "penalty" of $2,084....
Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married -- a difference of $1,650.
So under both bills, married people making the same as an unmarried couple will pay more. And in BOTH cases the people are below what most consider "middle class".
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote]
QuoteThat makes zero sense.
Conservatives claim the government likes to just give out money for anything and everything, yet now they are claiming if the government controls healthcare they will ration it and Grandma won't get that new liver to save her life. Why is it on one hand the right say the Dems want to spend spend spend but yet on the other they will all of a sudden not want to spend.
No. I will explain it this way again:
There are four ways to spend money.
(1) Spend your money on yourself - you buy what you need or want, getting the best price for the best product or service. Thus, I have a Volvo SUV because it is the best for MY needs and desires.
(2) Spend your money on others - in this case you are not necessarily interestes in whether the person wants or needs what you are buying, but you will get it for as inexpensive a price as you can.
(3) Spend other people's money on yourself. You will get what you want and to hell with the price. Volvo? I'll get a couple hundred thousand worth of improvements to the safety, engine, etc.
(4) Spend other people's money on other people. This is what government does. They buy you what they think you should need or want and the cost is unimportant - until revenues decline.
So, the if the government thinks that mammography costs too much it drops them. On the other hand it will spend billions on lifestyle education - and with no accountability on whether the program works. Spending other peoples' money on other people is the least efficient method of spending.
I will also say this.- there is no such thing as high quality health care that is both available on demand and inexpensive. You can have two but not three.
Yet, it is promised that health care will be better, quicker, and less expensive. Right...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
mnealtx 0
Quoteclaiming if the government controls healthcare they will ration it and Grandma won't get that new liver to save her life.
You *do* know that the healthcare bill pulls half a TRILLION dollars out of Medicare, right?
You also obviously missed the news conference where Obama said it might be better to give Grandma some pain pills instead of a pacemaker.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Bolas 5
QuoteEveryone keeps focusing on HOW medical services are paid for, private insurance or government. On a national level that is meaningless in the long term, as the solution must be not a change in how services are billed, but instead a reduction in the basic medical costs themselves, or a reduction in the total services received, i.e. restrictions and delays. When this bill passes, and they take a half trillion dollars out of Medicare funding, you will see more and more hospitals, then more and more doctors, follow Mayo's example of rejecting medicare.
But but that will take to long and is too hard. We need the fix right now so we can be reelected.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Quote
(2) Spend your money on others - in this case you are not necessarily interestes in whether the person wants or needs what you are buying, but you will get it for as inexpensive a price as you can.
(3) Spend other people's money on yourself. You will get what you want and to hell with the price. Volvo? I'll get a couple hundred thousand worth of improvements to the safety, engine, etc.
Looks like the current state of health insurance combines the worst of those two points - unless you have a high deductible HSA policy, you're basically spend your money on others (when you don't get care), and spending others money on you (when you do).
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
QuoteQuote
(2) Spend your money on others - in this case you are not necessarily interestes in whether the person wants or needs what you are buying, but you will get it for as inexpensive a price as you can.
(3) Spend other people's money on yourself. You will get what you want and to hell with the price. Volvo? I'll get a couple hundred thousand worth of improvements to the safety, engine, etc.QuoteLooks like the current state of health insurance combines the worst of those two points - unless you have a high deductible HSA policy, you're basically spend your money on others (when you don't get care)
True, but how is that all the insurance industry's fault? A large driver in that cost is government policies like mandatory ER treatment with no hope of getting repaid. Those costs are absorbed by the hospital, doctors, insurance companies, and paying customers. Why would you expect insurance companies to just take those hits and not pass on the cost?
You also left out the point that says you get to spend money on yourself. That's where "unless you have a high deductable HSA" comes from. Your ability to decide what you want/need. You get to pick your company, your plan, and your deductable. Spending your money on yourself is the most responsible way to spend and to get what you want/need.Quote, and spending others money on you (when you do).
I think you're missing the point. Lawrocket was not talking about the inner workings of an insurance company. Of course if you need $100,000 surgery then the insurance, and hence other people's premiums, will cover it.
He was talking about life and fiscal choices in general. You spending your money on you is the best way to get a good deal for what you want. Allowing me to pick your insurance plan (or car or house) and pay for it with someone else's money is assanine. That was his point.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
Quote
True, but how is that all the insurance industry's fault?
Well, for the industry itself it is definitely not fault - it is the situation they created, and greatly benefiting from.
Quote
A large driver in that cost is government policies like mandatory ER treatment with no hope of getting repaid. Those costs are absorbed by the hospital, doctors, insurance companies, and paying customers. Why would you expect insurance companies to just take those hits and not pass on the cost?
Indeed. This is one of the reasons much more regulation is needed. The health insurers basically created this situation themselves by throwing people out of plans when they became too expensive. "Pre-existing condition" is good to get short-time profits (which seems to be something most businesses are concentrated nowadays), and will lead to failure in long term. The second part was created by those opposing mandatory insurance coverage for everyone (and I wonder how would you reasonably fix the "go ER and do not pay" problem without requiring mandatory coverage).
Quote
You also left out the point that says you get to spend money on yourself. That's where "unless you have a high deductable HSA" comes from. Your ability to decide what you want/need. You get to pick your company, your plan, and your detuctable. Spending your money on yourself is the most responsible way to spend and to get what you want/need.
Even in this case it is the same, just the threshold is higher. Basically once you paid your deductible for a specific year, you're getting free treatment for the rest of the year, and the treatment cost is no longer an issue.
***
He was talking about life and fiscal choices in general. You spending your money on you is the best way to get a good deal for what you want. Allowing me to pick your insurance plan (or car or house) and pay for it with someone else's money is assanine. That was his point.
My point was that when you picked up the insurance plan, you're not spending your money on yourself. You're spending your money on others, and others money on yourself. This is just the way insurance works.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
My point was that when you picked up the insurance plan, you're not spending your money on yourself. You're spending your money on others, and others money on yourself. This is just the way insurance works.
Then, yes, you are missing his point. Again, his post was not about the inner workings of insurance. I know that's how it works. Lawrocket's point was that there are 4 ways to spend money. Someone spending money that isn't theirs for a product they won't use is the least responsible/practicle. That's what the government does. When you get to choose what company/coverage/plan/etc, you are choosing what is best for you in your situation. Letting the government do that for us is the least responsible/practical way. They have no interest in you personally and couldn't care less about the cost since it isn't their money they're spending; ie. soaring deficits and assanine healthcare laws. Sound familiar?
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
Quote
When you get to choose what company/coverage/plan/etc, you are choosing what is best for you in your situation.
That is in theory. But in reality what you are choosing is usually the least worst in your situation (unless you manage the health insurance company). At least during my five years in U.S. and dealing with three different insurance companies and five group plans it was always the same - a choice between a cheap plan which covers nothing, and really expensive plan which covers everything including probably dick enhancements too.
Quote
Letting the government do that for us is the least responsible/practical way. They have no interest in you personally and couldn't care less about the cost since it isn't their money they're spending; ie. soaring deficits and assanine healthcare laws. Sound familiar?
Health insurance company has no interest in you personally as well. The only thing they have interest is your money, and their goal is to sell you as much as possible and provide as little as possible in services. And they don't care about the costs either - the average premiums doubled in last ten years, and they can get away with it because you have very little choice anyway.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rehmwa 2
Quoteand they can get away with it because you have very little choice anyway.
and your preference is to complete the monopoly
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quoteand your preference is to complete the monopoly
No, my preference is to provide another cost-savvy option (public plan), which covers only essentials and does not cover shit like massages, chiropractic or "Christian healing"
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteand your preference is to complete the monopoly
No, my preference is to provide another cost-savvy option (public plan), which covers only essentials and does not cover shit like massages, chiropractic or "Christian healing"
You know, that VERY point has been made over and over. Remember the posts about state mandated coverage??????
And the gov has already admitted the bill they are debated would very likely NOT lower costs
IMO this can be done without the gov. Hell, they are a big part of the problem today and you want them to fix it?
IMO it CANT be done with the gov taking control or passing this HC train wreck
(which I am about ready to predict it will not make it out of conference..........I hope)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
You know, that VERY point has been made over and over. Remember the posts about state mandated coverage??????
That's why we need ONE authority to mandate the minimum coverage, and not fifty different authorities.
Quote
And the gov has already admitted the bill they are debated would very likely NOT lower costs
It would be unrealistic to see the costs actually going down, but even stopping the pace they increase would be good enough. Medicare with its 0.9% increase per year looks much better here than private industry which maintained steady 5% increase per year for last ten years, while kicking out patients who became too expensive.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
This creates a commons. Whether a person uses lots of it or none of it it costs the same. Much like the air, something that belongs to everyone belongs to nobody.
On that basis, there will have to be restrictions on the use of the finite resource - rationing. You've got a sniffle? Go to the doctor - it doesn't cost anything. How about a nosebleed? It costs the same as the sniffle but wait in line.
It's a fine way of creating scarcity by increasing demand. That means more expensive. Costs can only be controlled by not paying the providers, which increases scarcity as they quit.
You see the patients spend other people's money on themselves. Inefficient and costly.
The government will decide where to spend the money. This brings the political aspect in, and maybe ADHD will not be considered a winner. More funds may be diverted to "fibromyalgia" or something.
Government picks winners and losers. You cannot make your own breaks. So when the government decides that treating diseases related to smoking, obesity or alcohol is too expensive (they won't pick on obesity - too many registered voters with elevated BMIs) we'll see how much people dig it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
On that basis, there will have to be restrictions on the use of the finite resource - rationing. You've got a sniffle? Go to the doctor - it doesn't cost anything. How about a nosebleed? It costs the same as the sniffle but wait in line.
It's a fine way of creating scarcity by increasing demand. That means more expensive. Costs can only be controlled by not paying the providers, which increases scarcity as they quit.
You see the patients spend other people's money on themselves. Inefficient and costly.
The government will decide where to spend the money. This brings the political aspect in, and maybe ADHD will not be considered a winner. More funds may be diverted to "fibromyalgia" or something.
Government picks winners and losers. You cannot make your own breaks. So when the government decides that treating diseases related to smoking, obesity or alcohol is too expensive (they won't pick on obesity - too many registered voters with elevated BMIs) we'll see how much people dig it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteand your preference is to complete the monopoly
No, my preference is to provide another cost-savvy option (public plan), which covers only essentials and does not cover shit like massages, chiropractic or "Christian healing"
I think it's cute that you really think that it'll end up at that point.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quote
This creates a commons. Whether a person uses lots of it or none of it it costs the same. Much like the air, something that belongs to everyone belongs to nobody. On that basis, there will have to be restrictions on the use of the finite resource - rationing.
Your post describes a good implementation of government plan. However, unlike air, there is more than one plan available, and the quality-availability-cost triangle is a constrain on a specific plan, not on a whole system. So yes, free healthcare may be rationed, or may be lower quality (for example, a cast instead of surgery for a broken leg, weight loss pills and diet advice instead of liposuction, glasses instead of contact lens and so on), or both. Indeed, if the government is able to provide the same quality on the same availability but cheaper, this means private industry indeed screwed up.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
QuoteI think it's cute that you really think that it'll end up at that point.
It will start at that point. It's the first step in right direction.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI think it's cute that you really think that it'll end up at that point.
It will start at that point. It's the first step in right direction.
Yeah, ok.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteIt will start at that point. It's the first step in right direction.
for people that don't have a fucking clue - if you don't like capitalism go somewere else
pirana 0
Quote. . . you're basically spend your money on others (when you don't get care), and spending others money on you (when you do).
That, in a nutshell, is insurance.
You pay for it, use it or not, and actually hope you don't need it.
When you don't need it, you're paying for care for others. When you do need it, others are paying for your care.
In the long run, on average, everyone has paid for their own care. How actuarial.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
Bolas 5
QuoteQuote. . . you're basically spend your money on others (when you don't get care), and spending others money on you (when you do).
That, in a nutshell, is insurance.
You pay for it, use it or not, and actually hope you don't need it.
When you don't need it, you're paying for care for others. When you do need it, others are paying for your care.
In the long run, on average, everyone has paid for their own care. How actuarial.
Until the gov't steps in and forces companies to provide x and not provide y and at the same time creates a safety net they can throw all of their unprofitable patients to.
While originally, I'm sure the intentions were good in the regulations, they still have paved the road quite well.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Quotefor people that don't have a fucking clue - if you don't like capitalism go somewere else
It is very unlikely any of them would ever need or listen to your advice.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
That, in a nutshell, is insurance.
You pay for it, use it or not, and actually hope you don't need it.
When you don't need it, you're paying for care for others. When you do need it, others are paying for your care.
Correct. That is why it is a different case out of four those provided by lawrocket.
Quote
In the long run, on average, everyone has paid for their own care. How actuarial.
Nope. Everyone also paid for a bunch of other stuff, not related to their own care in any way. For example, we paid for 4M salaries for CEOs.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Conservatives claim the government likes to just give out money for anything and everything, yet now they are claiming if the government controls healthcare they will ration it and Grandma won't get that new liver to save her life. Why is it on one hand the right say the Dems want to spend spend spend but yet on the other they will all of a sudden not want to spend.
Because spend, spend, spend does not solve the problem. The Democratic answer is tax and spend our way to a better healthcare system. The government shells out billions a year on medicare and still doesn't cover the cost. They're forcing healthcare companies to take losses until they just can't bear the weight. Somehow you guys think that throwing more money at the situation will get us anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.