mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 You’re completely right it is about helping people. That is why the Republicans decided to do nothing about our health care problem and the skyrocketing cost when they were in power. No, they only bellowed about 1% of the total health care cost and how to bring that down with tort reform. I not happy with this plan, because I only see it as a band aid for the real problems, still it is better than anything else that has taken place over the previous 8 years. 3. I don't agree that making those of us who already have insurance pay more for people who do not. There are ways to cover the uninsured without putting an additional burden on taxpayers. Yea, do what we are doing now! Put the burden on those that pay health insurance premium. Or do your really believe a aspirin cost $5.00? Those that pay health insurance are already paying higher taxes, only now we are paying them to health insurance companies that are pay padded bills by hospitals and doctors that have treated the uninsured. As someone with an accounting degree and a business owner, I can tell you cost are passed on to the consumer that can pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten-96 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I agree that "most" Republicans wanted to do nothing about the costs associated with health care insurance and care in general. While that may be the case, it still makes no sense to have the government step in to take over the system. The current bill proposed by House Republicans have introduced an Amendment to tackle some of the problem associated with health insurance. While tort reform is among the proposals, it's not the only thing that House Republicans are seeking. Yea, do what we are doing now! Put the burden on those that pay health insurance premium. Or do your really believe a aspirin cost $5.00? Those that pay health insurance are already paying higher taxes, only now we are paying them to health insurance companies that are pay padded bills by hospitals and doctors that have treated the uninsured. I don't recall stating that I wanted things to continue as they are currently in any of my replies to this topic. I stated that the bill the democrats are proposing doesn't lower health care insurance costs for anyone, regardless. You lost me on the $5 aspirin. As far as the costs associated with health insurance, those that are already paying higher taxes will be paying even higher taxes but to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 So why didn't the Republican tackle this issue when they had control of both the White House and Congress? Get sick under todays system and you will know all about $5.00 aspirin and $3000.00 one block rides to hospitals. Simple economics, spreading the cost among the many is cheaper than spreading the cost among the few. If everyone is insured, then padding the insured’s bills will become obsolete thus driving down cost not only of health care, but health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 ......While that may be the case, it still makes no sense to have the government step in to take over the system. Exactly. The govt is effectively broke, yet Congress overreaches in an effort to further entrench it's control over our daily lives in the name of yet another "crisis". Again, rather than address the legitimate issue of reforms needed (portability, pre-existing conditions...), it has instead opted for transformation of the system. Given its track record, it's a bank busting boondoggle in the making. The CBO can't even really give a fair estimate of its cost b/c the details of the bill will continue to be a work in progress. Given how accurate it's projected costs for Medicare haven't been, I'd say any claim that this bill will end up being revenue neutral is worth less than the paper those promises will be printed on. Govt will not be able to do this on the backs of the rich alone and the "middle class" will suffer ever higher costs and taxes as a result, nevermind intrusions upon our own personal freedoms. Still, it has to pass the Senate...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten-96 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 So why didn't the Republican tackle this issue when they had control of both the White House and Congress? When the Republicans took over back in 94', Clinton was the President so they never had control of both Congress and the Whitehouse. There were many things they tried to accomplish. They weren't able to accomplish them all. Back then, the issue of health insurance costs weren't the focus of the masses. Get sick under todays system and you will know all about $5.00 aspirin and $3000.00 one block rides to hospitals. I am fortunate enough to stay very healthy. However, I have children and know all about hospital bills. I've always been of the mindset to let the insurance pay it's agreed upon portion and I'll pay the rest. I always assumed that was the way to do it. Simple economics, spreading the cost among the many is cheaper than spreading the cost among the few. If everyone is insured, then padding the insured’s bills will become obsolete thus driving down cost not only of health care, but health insurance. The few you mention aren't paying anything at all. All that does is raise the price for those already paying. For a solution that's supposed to lower costs, it's going about it the wrong way. The best way to lower health insurance is to eliminate the ban on interstate trade; not to let the government take over. It would work the same as with auto insurance. Right now, you can get online and purchase auto insurance from anywhere in the U.S. You should be able to do the same with health insurance. Insurers would be forced to lower their premiums to compete nationally. They would also be forced to reform the way they deal with hospitals, drug companies, pharmacies, etc... in order to stay viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Wow, I did not know that the Democrats controlled the congress the entire time Bush was President. I guess they need to fix the education system next, silly me. The rest of this I've already replied to in this thread. Under your plan, just who would be telling state what to do? And isn't that unconstitutional? Oh, wait that right, when the republicans pass a bill it is automatically constitutional like the Patriot Act. Right now, you can get online and purchase auto insurance from anywhere in the U.S. No you can not. You can only purchase insurance from state approve insured. The insurance company has to be permitted in your state by the your state department of insurance. Yes, you can buy it online, but you are purchasing the coverage from insured that has been approved to sell within your state. The policy has also been approved by your state and the people servicing the policy have been licensed by your state. BTW I am a licensed insurance agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten-96 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Wow, I did not know that the Democrats controlled the congress the entire time Bush was President. I guess they need to fix the education system next, silly me. When Bush 43 took office in 2000, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. However, not all of those Republicans were Conservative. The House of Representatives was much the same. Republican controlled with many moderates and liberals mixed in. The rest of this I've already replied to in this thread. Under your plan, just who would be telling state what to do? And isn't that unconstitutional? Oh, wait that right, when the republicans pass a bill it is automatically constitutional like the Patriot Act. The 10th Amendment would leave the individual states to decide what's best for their state. The Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001 to fight an enemy using newer technologies. It was resigned into law in 2006 with democratic support. If it was Unconstitutional, it would have been challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court. No you can not. You can only purchase insurance from state approve insured. The insurance company has to be permitted in your state by the your state department of insurance. Yes, you can buy it online, but you are purchasing the coverage from insured that has been approved to sell within your state. The policy has also been approved by your state and the people servicing the policy have been licensed by your state. BTW I am a licensed insurance agent. Okay. By allowing insurance companies to sell insurance in your state, you benefit from the savings since you can purchase different policies from different companies allowed to operate in your state. You could apply the same principle to health insurance. You could even have them offer different types of coverage instead of a blanket policy. It would still be far better than letting the government take over the health insurance industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The same principles that apply to auto insurance apply to health insurance today. The problem with what you are advocating is states control and regulate what is sold in their state. Blue Cross for example sells in many states, but the product is different from state to state base on that states regulations. And yes, it works the exact same way for the property and causality markets. State Farm, All State, Farmers, Progressive… sell in many states, but they are regulated in each state they operate in by that individual state. I’m in Texas, I can buy auto insurance from State Farm, but I can only purchase a Texas Personal Auto policy from State Farm. I can not purchase a Oklahoma Personal Auto Policy and renew my license, purchase tags or get my car inspection. I am also subject to a traffic violation if caught without the proper coverage as a Texas resident. Oh, just because a Conservative court refuses to hear an argument, does not mean it is Constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Govt is the problem. Whether it's the federal govt overreaching or state govts allowing defacto monopolies in insurance (energy, telecom,....). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 State Department of Insurance regulations protect consumers and prevent fly by night insurance companies from coming in writing business and then leaving once their coffers are filled and the claims start rolling in. From what I’ve seen the Texas Department of Insurance is not limiting trade, but they are making sure that insurance companies honor their obligations. After all, the consumer is only buying a few pieces of paper with a promise on it. Hopefully, they will never need to have that promise honored. However, I actually believe it is rather important that the insurance company be financial strong enough to honor their commitments. Otherwise you are only paying for a few sheets of paper with writing on them. Don’t know about you but I can purchase nice clean paper from Office Max a lot cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I agree that companies should be solvent. But given that the US govt is clearly insolvent and borrowing heavily (possibly on the verge of hyperinflating currency), how do you square solvency and healthy bottom lines with "public option" or even single payer govt healthcare? I guess Washington could hand out IOUs (like CA).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Well considering that a large part of the current increase in the debt comes from bailing out an industry deregulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I’m not in favor of deregulating the health insurance industry. Just call me… I don’t know…Conservative perhaps. Sorry Jae, missed your reply: These are the kinds of ridiculous lawsuits that we need to eliminate with tort reform. [/qUOTE] While I agree this is the type of case that needs to be eliminated, I disagree on the solution. I don’t what to punish those with a legitimate claim, because of a few bad apples. My solution is far simpler although it could never be implemented due to the number of lawyers in positions of power. Instead of limiting access to legal recourse, my suggest is if the jury finds the case frivolous the entire court cost is billed to the attorney that brought the case in front of the court. That attorney would not be allowed to bill their client the cost either. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that would end a few of these sue and hope to settle cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Well considering that a large part of the current increase in the debt comes from bailing out an industry deregulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I’m not in favor of deregulating the health insurance industry. Just call me… I don’t know…Conservative perhaps. Not Conservative enough to oppose a govt takeover of the healthcare industry apparently. To regulate is one thing, to run it something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 <snipped> I find it confusing that Conservatives seem not to understand that universal health care benefits people and business and should be at the forefront of their agenda. Instead they listen to talking heads such as O’Reilly, Rush, Hannity and Savage tell them this is a communist plot to take over America. These same talking heads don’t even know the difference between Communist, Socialist, and Fascist and yet people are listening to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I don't know about how equipment suppliers factor into all of this, but I do think that if it is cheaper to buy new equipment than to try to refurbish and repair old stuff, we ought to go that route. As for the disposed of equipment...hey, I'm an electronics experimenter so I can (SAFELY) find new applications of discarded defibrillators and such. (Hell, does anyone know of any hospitals in CA looking to just get rid of medical lasers? They'd make perfect pieces of equipment for a university! Even those old 600lb beasts!) Back on subject: if it costs $7200USD for repairing an oxygen machine that was previously used, and there are only ~$3000 USD to MAKE...why the hell do coverage companies insist upon keeping their own expenses up? "No E waste" will gladly accept discarded appliances as well as electronics hobbyists. I'm not just pulling this out my @$$: I actually know the owner of an equipment manufacturer/contractor company. Also, meaningful reform to me would be a "loser pays" sort of deal to discourage frivolous lawsuits--and it wouldn't need to be all across the board, just for a suing party that was found to be frivolously bringing suit. Am I missing something here? I looked at this particular business owner's bill for one year in legal defenses: $2,788,304.29! If we got rid of expenses from frivolous lawsuits, I'm sure that could make some difference to the costs in the medical industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 Durable medical equipment is used until it no longer functions. It's a lot cheaper to repair lasers, sterilizers, and such than it is to replace them. There is a point where it becomes more cost effective to replace an old piece of equipment with a newer, more energy-efficient model, but most of the time the equipment is fixed until it can't be fixed anymore, then it's sometimes traded in to the manufacturer for salvageable parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I find it confusing that Conservatives seem not to understand that universal health care benefits people and business and should be at the forefront of their agenda. I think you equate opposition to govt run healthcare with opposition to changing the staus quo. It's not oppostion to changing the system to be more efficient and provide better coverage, but opposition to yet another attempt by bureaucrats to take control over people's lives via artiface. The system is not irredeemably broken, it merely needs to be made better. Giving it over to the govt is NOT the way to do it. Doesn't matter whether the proponents are republican, liberals, progressives or communists...it all leads to yet another layer of control over people's lives that's unwelcome. Reform, not transform. Frankly, the timeline is artifical and these people seem to be doing their damndest to leave us in the dark about the details. Just more of the same old-same old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Not Conservative enough to oppose a govt takeover of the healthcare industry apparently. To regulate is one thing, to run it something else entirely. No amount of regulation will ensure that everyone is covered by some form of health insurance, that health insurance companies will pay claims instead of ducking around them like they do now, or that companies won't simply start gouging people with pre-existing conditions, like being raped, if they are forced to accept them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 No amount of regulation will ensure that everyone is covered by some form of health insurance, that health insurance companies will pay claims instead of ducking around them like they do now, or that companies won't simply start gouging people with pre-existing conditions, like being raped, if they are forced to accept them. Even with this so-called healthcare reform, at least 1/2 the uncovered aren't covered by the plan. Even after these reprobates finish raping our wallets and livlihoods to grow their power, we'll likely be no better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Well to hell with the whole thing, if this ****ty bill that's been stripped and watered down to get through the Senate can only half the number of uninsured people, why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Durable medical equipment is used until it no longer functions. It's a lot cheaper to repair lasers, sterilizers, and such than it is to replace them. There is a point where it becomes more cost effective to replace an old piece of equipment with a newer, more energy-efficient model, but most of the time the equipment is fixed until it can't be fixed anymore, then it's sometimes traded in to the manufacturer for salvageable parts. WRT lasers, yes. Oxygen machines and other stuff...not so much. But I essentially see what you're saying; all I was getting at was that someone ought to look into these costs (with a fine tooth comb) on behalf of customers/patients. Someone ideally arbitrary/neutral to both corporate interests and government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I don't think they took enough time evaluating the problems with health care. I mean its like a car. They heard a noise and decided to replace the whole drivetrain. They MIGHT fix it that way, but they are overspending and they aren't even sure where the real problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 4. As a Conservative, I still by my affirmation that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power nor the right to guarantee health insurance for every American citizen. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Seems pretty clearly stated there, although I'm sure someone will claim it's vague. Even though it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 As an effete European without a written constitution, I'd like to ask why it's relevant as to whether something is provided for in your constitution or not? No, really; why is a 200-year-old legal document put on a pedestal? I understand its importance in legal terms, but why do you seem to treat it like the fifth gospel? And given the number of amendments to your constitution, and the very existence thereof, why is it relevant that something is not in the text? The Magna Carta makes no provision for anti-terrorism laws. Peculiarly enough, it wasn't a pressing issue in 1215. I genuinely don't understand how "it's not provided for in the Constitution" is an argument. Perhaps I'm missing something about your legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The Congress' date=' whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[/Quote'] Since it is extremely difficult to actual admen the Constitution, having a law or bill stuck down as unconstitutional is pretty much a death sentence for that particular law or bill. For a document of this age and importance to only be amended 27 times either speaks to it perfection or the difficulty in the process to change it. Personally I do believe it speaks more to the difficulty designed into amending the document. Thankfully so, or there would have been many more boondoggles, such as the 18th amendment. However, in practicality saying something is unconstitutional has no real merit. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is truly unconstitutional and then that too can be overturned with an amendment or by a similar case going before the Supreme Court and that court making a different decision. @below, this time my spelling was correct. Added a link for those that need it. When I am responding to DI, I feel inclined to step my game up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.