[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Can these liberals name a single-payer (meaning Government) system anywhere in the world that doesn’t have countless true and horrible stories of rationed care?
If not then why – other than a general philosophy of loving government control, and loving for money to be taken from some people to benefit others, allowing them to not pay for the services or goods they receive – do they want it?[/quote]
What do you mean? Is care rationed in the United States?
[quote]milod wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Can these liberals name a single-payer (meaning Government) system anywhere in the world that doesn’t have countless true and horrible stories of rationed care?
If not then why – other than a general philosophy of loving government control, and loving for money to be taken from some people to benefit others, allowing them to not pay for the services or goods they receive – do they want it?[/quote]
I don’t really know. I suppose because they feel it is more fair to ration care based on patient need than based on patient ability to pay. Also, I think some people believe that most European single payer systems cost less for better aggregate outcomes than what we have in the United States, and that this leads to less rationing overall than what we already have.
I don’t think I can answer Vegita’s question any better than I have done so far, so I will leave you all to it.[/quote]
…what you said here is is true, for me at least. Thank you for explaining my position better than i ever could…
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…can this scenario happen?
Pre-existing conditions, at least with every plan I’ve ever had, are conditions you had received treatment for within a certain timeframe prior to enrolling with the current plan. This would not be a pre-existing condition.[/quote]
Technically, it usually only requires that you have some knowledge of the pre-existing condition, you wouldn’t necessarily have to have received treatment for the condition. It still wouldn’t affect this scenario.
Furthermore, the government already forces companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions to group policies. If the condition has not been present for 12 months, the enrollee must be accepted. This time frame does not apply to individual policies.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Tort reform. Opening up business across state lines. Allowing small business to pool for better rates. These are the bare beginnings of reform. We have none of this in this bill. [/quote]
Allowing small businesses to pool group policies would move in the wrong direction. We need to separate ourselves from the employer-based healthcare system. This can be accomplished by taxing individuals for all healthcare benefits at their ordinary income tax rate and eliminating any deductions for the employer.
The consumer has become too far detached from their health insurance. The insurance companies customers have become the employers themselves. This has created a complete disjoint between the individual and their required care. It also causes inflated prices for many, and many more are over-insured.
The biggest problem with group policies is that by allowing the insurance company to diversify their risk across a large pool, they are able to rewrite the terms of the policy on a yearly basis without dropping anybody. This simply wouldn’t happen if we all had individual policies. Imagine finding out that your healthcare can be changed as often as your car insurance, and that you can be dropped at any time. The consumer would not stand for this, and they would not have to. In order to properly serve the needs of the consumer, insurance companies would have to offer much longer terms, or even a lifetime insurance product. As soon as you come off you parents policy, one could get their own policy with a gauranteed premium for life, just like with life insurance. Riders could be added for children that you may have down the road, and there could even be an option (at a cost, of course) for the child to maintain a default policy for life without having to ever get underwritten. That rate would likely be slightly higher than if the child got underwritten for their own policy at age 22, but it would completely eliminate the whole pre-existing condition condundrum.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I want some liberals to explain why they think an insurance company should take on a client who has a pre-existing condition which they know they are going to have to pay out? I am an insurance agent, would you expect me to insure every person who has damage to thier car already and tell them, Oh sure, let me fix that for you.
If that were to be allowed, then nobody would buy collision insurance until they needed it. Why the hell would I pay month after month for something that I could just buy when I needed it. I mean you people do understand the concept of INSURANCE don’t you? Insurance is the thing where you PAY into a pool so that if something out of the ordinary happens and impacts you financially, the pool will cover your expenses. If people don’t pay into the pool, people should not get the benefit of someone paying for their unexpected problems, be it monetary, health, or property related.
When did the government become the entity which is responsible for making sure that no american has an experience where luck, thier own stupidity, or some other force causes them to suffer a loss? Do you think it’s possible to prevent anyone in our country from dealing with hardship, lack of planning, or consecuences of thier own actions.
I just don’t understand the liberal mindset with regard to some people being forced to give to others who may or may not deserve help.
V[/quote]
I am not some liberal, but I understand your question. Insurance was created for the good of the people. Then it was opened up to the free market, and that is where it started to slide.
Now here in America we have a bunch of people that think the free market will take care of everything from cell phones (check Americaâ??s service compared to other counties) to hemorrhoids . These free market idiots do not understand that the good of the people, should out weigh the good of a particular industry.
I have to agree with lifty on this one; if you do not tweak the Ins. Market then you should make Ins. Illegal so everybody could afford health care.
Jeaton I like you. I think you will learn that since this is an anonymous forum that people will not share the same ethical standards that you have. It took me a while to understand most of these people are only capable of repeating the rhetoric that someone else has digested
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not some liberal,[/quote]
Honestly?
It is not fully open to free markets, and over the years the “free” in the market has been eroded more and more. These are companies that have to revamp their business model every year because of some bureaucrat.
And again, when exactly was the cell phone industry free? From day one the government was in charge of who got what. At one time my city was only allowed 2 cell phone carriers by law. (And it may have been just one at one time.) How exactly is this free market?
[quote]I have to agree with lifty on this one; if you do not tweak the Ins. Market then you should make Ins. Illegal so everybody could afford health care.
Jeaton I like you. I think you will learn that since this is an anonymous forum that people will not share the same ethical standards that you have. It took me a while to understand most of these people are only capable of repeating the rhetoric that someone else has digested
[/quote]Isn’t this what your doing though? Repeating exactly what the left says about how the government cures everything, and should help eliminate all those rich fat cats who make their money by stealing from the poor. (How does that work anyway?)
Unlike some, I do believe there should be regulation. People keep thinking it is the governments job to take care of you, and this is the most dangerous way to think.
What the government actually does is chose the winners and the losers. They are the ones who help create the monopolies. They just spent the last year and a half deciding which business was allowed to exist and which one wasn’t. They decided they were allowed to take a company, and give half of it to a union. Why?
Many banks would have been saved by simply changing a few accounting rules. Even if just temporarily. Instead they let some banks fail, propped up other banks, and actually forced many to take funds when they didn’t want to, or need to. How was this helping?
Now the reason for pre-existing conditions is fairly simple. Without this rule, why would anyone buy health insurance until they needed it? If you could simply hop in and out any time you wanted to, why not wait to buy it until you needed it? Insurance companies would have to either charge outrageous amounts, making it completely worthless, or they would all go under.
My problem is when a person changes jobs, or loses their insurance for reasons out of their control. I would simply modify the rules so that this rule could not apply if they person has had insurance within a certain period of time.
The free market is not perfect, so yes laws do need to be in place. But it is the government being the busy body, doing things it does not need to do, making rules it doesn’t need to make, and generally interfering that causes most of the problems.
When the government is paying hundreds for a hammer, thousands for a toilet seat, created Trillions of dollars in debt, and using accounting rules that would get any business closed down, why does anyone actually think they can do it better?
Ideas of socialism are so seductive. They sound so good. Everyone taken care of. Health care for all. No poverty. No hunger.
2 problems, first it is nothing but slavery, and second, it just doesn’t work. Kind of like how perpetual motion does not work. But people keep on trying, regardless of the fact that it violates the laws of physics.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I want some liberals to explain why they think an insurance company should take on a client who has a pre-existing condition which they know they are going to have to pay out? I am an insurance agent, would you expect me to insure every person who has damage to thier car already and tell them, Oh sure, let me fix that for you.
If that were to be allowed, then nobody would buy collision insurance until they needed it. Why the hell would I pay month after month for something that I could just buy when I needed it. I mean you people do understand the concept of INSURANCE don’t you? Insurance is the thing where you PAY into a pool so that if something out of the ordinary happens and impacts you financially, the pool will cover your expenses. If people don’t pay into the pool, people should not get the benefit of someone paying for their unexpected problems, be it monetary, health, or property related.
When did the government become the entity which is responsible for making sure that no american has an experience where luck, thier own stupidity, or some other force causes them to suffer a loss? Do you think it’s possible to prevent anyone in our country from dealing with hardship, lack of planning, or consecuences of thier own actions.
I just don’t understand the liberal mindset with regard to some people being forced to give to others who may or may not deserve help.
V[/quote]
I am not some liberal, but I understand your question. Insurance was created for the good of the people. Then it was opened up to the free market, and that is where it started to slide.
Now here in America we have a bunch of people that think the free market will take care of everything from cell phones (check Americaâ??s service compared to other counties) to hemorrhoids . These free market idiots do not understand that the good of the people, should out weigh the good of a particular industry.
I have to agree with lifty on this one; if you do not tweak the Ins. Market then you should make Ins. Illegal so everybody could afford health care.
Jeaton I like you. I think you will learn that since this is an anonymous forum that people will not share the same ethical standards that you have. It took me a while to understand most of these people are only capable of repeating the rhetoric that someone else has digested
[/quote]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of insurance for starters. I have no opinion on the rest of your post, but insurance is merely a vehicle to spread risk. It does not exist for the “good of the people”. It exists to allow you to insure against risk. No more, no less. Insurance is not a social program.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now the reason for pre-existing conditions is fairly simple. Without this rule, why would anyone buy health insurance until they needed it? If you could simply hop in and out any time you wanted to, why not wait to buy it until you needed it? Insurance companies would have to either charge outrageous amounts, making it completely worthless, or they would all go under.
My problem is when a person changes jobs, or loses their insurance for reasons out of their control. I would simply modify the rules so that this rule could not apply if they person has had insurance within a certain period of time.
[/quote]
THIS
[quote]The Mage wrote:
My problem is when a person changes jobs, or loses their insurance for reasons out of their control. I would simply modify the rules so that this rule could not apply if they person has had insurance within a certain period of time.
[/quote]
This is already covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act. Any prior coverage one had can go towards the 12 month time frame that I mentioned before for pre-existing conditions. So if you had insurance for a year, developed a condition, and then lost your job but found a new one, the new group policy would be forced to accept you so long as the gap between insurance wasn’t greater than 63 days. Keep in mind that this also goes hand in hand with COBRA if you are worried about the 63 day gap. If you lose your job, you can maintain your current insurance policy for 18 months under COBRA, so you really shouldn’t have to worry about the 63 day gap clause.
This only applies to group policies, but in the case of an individual policy it is a non-issue since the policy is not tied to your job.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now the reason for pre-existing conditions is fairly simple. Without this rule, why would anyone buy health insurance until they needed it? If you could simply hop in and out any time you wanted to, why not wait to buy it until you needed it? Insurance companies would have to either charge outrageous amounts, making it completely worthless, or they would all go under.
[/quote]
Which is exactly why the current health care reform proposal requires everyone to purchase insurance.
[quote]milod wrote:
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now the reason for pre-existing conditions is fairly simple. Without this rule, why would anyone buy health insurance until they needed it? If you could simply hop in and out any time you wanted to, why not wait to buy it until you needed it? Insurance companies would have to either charge outrageous amounts, making it completely worthless, or they would all go under.
[/quote]
Which is exactly why the current health care reform proposal requires everyone to purchase insurance.[/quote]
Why not just say, Ok, if you don’t want to pay for coverage, be prepared to get turned away at the hospital when you get injured or are sick. Unless you can pay out of pocket that is.
Is it really better to say, OK if you get sick and you don’t have health insurance, the penalty is you might get sick, you might get hurt and not be able to get treated or in the worst case scenario, you could die. COULD being the operative word.
Under the governments scenario, if you don’t want to have health insurance you WILL get fined 25,000 and go to PRISON for 5 years. I think even though the odds are less than ideal, I would still rather go without healthcare under the current system than the new one.
Oh you say, but it will be affordable to get it under the new system. Oh really? How is it going to cost less than it does now when you add 30 million people to the pool who don’t pay anything into it? I have seen estimates that it will cost a family of 4 $15,000 per year for the governemtn plan. How is that making anything better? Because we can say we have 100% healthcare instead of 90%?
The plan just doesn’t work in real life. At least not the way it’s being proposed now. I’m not saying that there is absolutely no way that healthcare reform will never work, I think there are some things the government can do to make things better. Thsi bill is just not one of them.
V
Im dealing with a situation like this right now.My wife got laid off december of 08, she then started some schooling and collecting unemployment.She was on cobra for a while but it was expensive so she discontinued.My insurance at work has open enrolement every june and we waived adding her then because it is 400 dollars a month as opposed to 76 for just me.
Well in october she got pregnant with no insurance.Since then I have tried everything to get her added on to my insurance because my program doesnt consider pregnancy a pre existing condition but they turned us down because its not during the enrolement window.
We have tried to look into getting state assistance but apparently I make to much money which is news to me.She is now interning at a dentist but there insurance program considers pregnancy a pre existing condition.
So fuck us, we were both born in this country and have never commited a felony or anything close, we pay our taxes and doing everything we are supposed to but hey we got pregnant without it being planned so we are shit out of luck.The shitty thing is and this is gonna piss alot of you off but I dont care, if we were mexican or some unemployed african americans on welfare we wouldnt be paying for shit, most likely we would be getting grants and sent to college.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Im dealing with a situation like this right now.My wife got laid off december of 08, she then started some schooling and collecting unemployment.She was on cobra for a while but it was expensive so she discontinued.My insurance at work has open enrolement every june and we waived adding her then because it is 400 dollars a month as opposed to 76 for just me.
Well in october she got pregnant with no insurance.Since then I have tried everything to get her added on to my insurance because my program doesnt consider pregnancy a pre existing condition but they turned us down because its not during the enrolement window.
We have tried to look into getting state assistance but apparently I make to much money which is news to me.She is now interning at a dentist but there insurance program considers pregnancy a pre existing condition.
So fuck us, we were both born in this country and have never commited a felony or anything close, we pay our taxes and doing everything we are supposed to but hey we got pregnant without it being planned so we are shit out of luck.The shitty thing is and this is gonna piss alot of you off but I dont care, if we were mexican or some unemployed african americans on welfare we wouldnt be paying for shit, most likely we would be getting grants and sent to college.[/quote]
I understand your frustration but what I don’t understand is your logic. How is it that you did “everything you were supposed to”? First, you and your wife made a conscious decision to go uninsured. You decided to accept a risk. Next, you again, of your own collective volition, decided to go uninsured yet again when you skipped the open enrollment period at your job. You had an “unplanned” pregnancy. Frankly, I don’t see much difference there than some border jumper or teenager getting pregnant. You know you have sex correct? I assume no contraception, or reliable contraception was in play correct? I think all of the foregoing is indisputable, yet you claim you do “everything you were supposed to”. So let’s sum it up: twice you made a decision not to insure your wife. You had unprotected sex and she became pregnant (sincere congratulations - circumstances notwithstanding). Now you are reaping the result of the risk you knowlingly accepted on TWO ocassions.
What am I missing?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Im dealing with a situation like this right now.My wife got laid off december of 08, she then started some schooling and collecting unemployment.She was on cobra for a while but it was expensive so she discontinued.My insurance at work has open enrolement every june and we waived adding her then because it is 400 dollars a month as opposed to 76 for just me.
Well in october she got pregnant with no insurance.Since then I have tried everything to get her added on to my insurance because my program doesnt consider pregnancy a pre existing condition but they turned us down because its not during the enrolement window.
We have tried to look into getting state assistance but apparently I make to much money which is news to me.She is now interning at a dentist but there insurance program considers pregnancy a pre existing condition.
So fuck us, we were both born in this country and have never commited a felony or anything close, we pay our taxes and doing everything we are supposed to but hey we got pregnant without it being planned so we are shit out of luck.The shitty thing is and this is gonna piss alot of you off but I dont care, if we were mexican or some unemployed african americans on welfare we wouldnt be paying for shit, most likely we would be getting grants and sent to college.[/quote]
I understand your frustration but what I don’t understand is your logic. How is it that you did “everything you were supposed to”? First, you and your wife made a conscious decision to go uninsured. You decided to accept a risk. Next, you again, of your own collective volition, decided to go uninsured yet again when you skipped the open enrollment period at your job. You had an “unplanned” pregnancy. Frankly, I don’t see much difference there than some border jumper or teenager getting pregnant. You know you have sex correct? I assume no contraception, or reliable contraception was in play correct? I think all of the foregoing is indisputable, yet you claim you do “everything you were supposed to”. So let’s sum it up: twice you made a decision not to insure your wife. You had unprotected sex and she became pregnant (sincere congratulations - circumstances notwithstanding). Now you are reaping the result of the risk you knowlingly accepted on TWO ocassions.
What am I missing?[/quote]
I’m with BG on this one. How can you expect insurance (i.e. Other People) to pay for your wifes pregnancy, when you DECIDED to not participate in the coverage, and thus not pull your own weight.
Guess what, I went uninsured for 2 months this past year, it was a calculated descision. My wife had much cheaper insurance kicking in (she started a job at a hospital) and I could save a couple hundred bucks per month by dropping myself. Well not one day after my insurance ended, I feel a bump on my gum right below one of my back molars. Yep I got an abcessed tooth. It was my own fault and guess what I did, I paid for a dentist visit out of pocket to assess how serious it was and if I could wait the 2 months. They said other than pain, as long as it was draining I should be safe. So I dealt with it. Now I have a gold tooth and look cool to boot. Not that that is relevant.
V
[quote]milod wrote:
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now the reason for pre-existing conditions is fairly simple. Without this rule, why would anyone buy health insurance until they needed it? If you could simply hop in and out any time you wanted to, why not wait to buy it until you needed it? Insurance companies would have to either charge outrageous amounts, making it completely worthless, or they would all go under.
[/quote]
Which is exactly why the current health care reform proposal requires everyone to purchase insurance.[/quote]
But that is stupid. It is taking one problem, and turning it on it’s head. It follows the same logic as making french fries illegal because it helps make people fat. These same politicians may have heard that protein is bad for your kidneys, and make meat illegal.
It is the government telling the people they are too dumb to do it themselves, so the thinking will be done by the government.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I want some liberals to explain why they think an insurance company should take on a client who has a pre-existing condition which they know they are going to have to pay out? I am an insurance agent, would you expect me to insure every person who has damage to thier car already and tell them, Oh sure, let me fix that for you.
If that were to be allowed, then nobody would buy collision insurance until they needed it. Why the hell would I pay month after month for something that I could just buy when I needed it. I mean you people do understand the concept of INSURANCE don’t you? Insurance is the thing where you PAY into a pool so that if something out of the ordinary happens and impacts you financially, the pool will cover your expenses. If people don’t pay into the pool, people should not get the benefit of someone paying for their unexpected problems, be it monetary, health, or property related.
When did the government become the entity which is responsible for making sure that no american has an experience where luck, thier own stupidity, or some other force causes them to suffer a loss? Do you think it’s possible to prevent anyone in our country from dealing with hardship, lack of planning, or consecuences of thier own actions.
I just don’t understand the liberal mindset with regard to some people being forced to give to others who may or may not deserve help.
V[/quote]
I am not some liberal, but I understand your question. Insurance was created for the good of the people. Then it was opened up to the free market, and that is where it started to slide.
Now here in America we have a bunch of people that think the free market will take care of everything from cell phones (check America�¢??s service compared to other counties) to hemorrhoids . These free market idiots do not understand that the good of the people, should out weigh the good of a particular industry.
I have to agree with lifty on this one; if you do not tweak the Ins. Market then you should make Ins. Illegal so everybody could afford health care.
Jeaton I like you. I think you will learn that since this is an anonymous forum that people will not share the same ethical standards that you have. It took me a while to understand most of these people are only capable of repeating the rhetoric that someone else has digested
[/quote]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of insurance for starters. I have no opinion on the rest of your post, but insurance is merely a vehicle to spread risk. It does not exist for the “good of the people”. It exists to allow you to insure against risk. No more, no less. Insurance is not a social program.[/quote]
Blue cross and Blue Shield were created by Doctors and Hospitals. When they were started they were nonprofit, Blue Cross 1929
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Im dealing with a situation like this right now.My wife got laid off december of 08, she then started some schooling and collecting unemployment.She was on cobra for a while but it was expensive so she discontinued.My insurance at work has open enrolement every june and we waived adding her then because it is 400 dollars a month as opposed to 76 for just me.
Well in october she got pregnant with no insurance.Since then I have tried everything to get her added on to my insurance because my program doesnt consider pregnancy a pre existing condition but they turned us down because its not during the enrolement window.
We have tried to look into getting state assistance but apparently I make to much money which is news to me.She is now interning at a dentist but there insurance program considers pregnancy a pre existing condition.
So fuck us, we were both born in this country and have never commited a felony or anything close, we pay our taxes and doing everything we are supposed to but hey we got pregnant without it being planned so we are shit out of luck.The shitty thing is and this is gonna piss alot of you off but I dont care, if we were mexican or some unemployed african americans on welfare we wouldnt be paying for shit, most likely we would be getting grants and sent to college.[/quote]
This is one of my issues, if you are not working the Gov. Supplies excellent ins., if you are working you are penalized.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Blue cross and Blue Shield were created by Doctors and Hospitals. When they were started they were nonprofit, Blue Cross 1929[/quote]
Still, to SPREAD RISK. There are all manner and form of “insurance” - not just for profit. There are many cooperative and pooling arrangements. Still, the concept is one of spreading risk. Whether for profit or not, the insured must contribute a sum to be covered for a peril. You speak as if the original BC/BS was a social program.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Im dealing with a situation like this right now.My wife got laid off december of 08, she then started some schooling and collecting unemployment.She was on cobra for a while but it was expensive so she discontinued.My insurance at work has open enrolement every june and we waived adding her then because it is 400 dollars a month as opposed to 76 for just me.
Well in october she got pregnant with no insurance.Since then I have tried everything to get her added on to my insurance because my program doesnt consider pregnancy a pre existing condition but they turned us down because its not during the enrolement window.
We have tried to look into getting state assistance but apparently I make to much money which is news to me.She is now interning at a dentist but there insurance program considers pregnancy a pre existing condition.
So fuck us, we were both born in this country and have never commited a felony or anything close, we pay our taxes and doing everything we are supposed to but hey we got pregnant without it being planned so we are shit out of luck.The shitty thing is and this is gonna piss alot of you off but I dont care, if we were mexican or some unemployed african americans on welfare we wouldnt be paying for shit, most likely we would be getting grants and sent to college.[/quote]
This is one of my issues, if you are not working the Gov. Supplies excellent ins., if you are working you are penalized.[/quote]
You can’t be serious. You see the above as an example of being “penalized” when they twice opted out of available coverage??? Really?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I’m with BG on this one. How can you expect insurance (i.e. Other People) to pay for your wifes pregnancy, when you DECIDED to not participate in the coverage, and thus not pull your own weight.
Guess what, I went uninsured for 2 months this past year, it was a calculated descision. My wife had much cheaper insurance kicking in (she started a job at a hospital) and I could save a couple hundred bucks per month by dropping myself. Well not one day after my insurance ended, I feel a bump on my gum right below one of my back molars. Yep I got an abcessed tooth. It was my own fault and guess what I did, I paid for a dentist visit out of pocket to assess how serious it was and if I could wait the 2 months. They said other than pain, as long as it was draining I should be safe. So I dealt with it. Now I have a gold tooth and look cool to boot. Not that that is relevant.
V[/quote]
Wait wait wait…back the truck up.
Did you pay out of pocket for the gold tooth, and dentist visit to have the abscess taken care of (not just an assessment)? If not, then you had a pre-existing condition, flew under the radar when getting re-insured, had the pre-existing abscess fixed under insurance, and then started a thread about how you don’t want to be saddled paying for pre-existing conditions?
Just checking.