" I also want someone to explain to me why, under this new policy, any financially clever family would not cancel their insurance , pay the relatively small fine and routine medical expenses and purchase insurance in the even of catastrophe since there will no longer be pre-existing condition exclutions. Is there something there to prevent this? If possible it would defeat the purpose no?" I will do that if my premiums go up. Then I will get insurance right after my wife gets pregnant. Then I will drop coverage after my kids turn 9 or 10 and no longer need constant medical attention. Of course, I will get coverage if some catastrophic event occurs. This practice wlll become pervasive if the tax on āCadillacā Plans occurs.
Having lived in four countries besides the U.S., with both higher and lower GDP per capita than that of the U.S. and nationalized or mixed health care systems, I cannot believe that people actually can go to bankruptcy because of medical expenses and that insurance companies can chose to stop covering you or your family. Thatās just wrong and offensive. It seems thereās no effective solution because the root cause will still be unchanged: the artificial high costs of the health services.
@akansa; You said: My final question is thisā¦ I also want someone to explain to me why, under this new policy, any financially clever family would not cancel their insurance , pay the relatively small fine and routine medical expenses and purchase insurance in the even of catastrophe since there will no longer be pre-existing condition exclutions. Is there something there to prevent this? If possible it would defeat the purpose no? The answer isā¦ Do you know how long it takes for a health care plan to be approved and you be issued an insurance id/card? Try anywhere from a few weeks to a month. If you pay the penalty then get in a car accident; there will not be a way to get a health care plan the same day of the accident therefore no rational financially prudent individual would do what you are suggesting. If you pay the penalty and get in a car accident; you will be rushed to the hospital and left with hefty hospital bills. Unless, you can foresee the next time a catastrophe will occur, what you are suggesting will not work.
@ Part-time Crook, How would you know when you child is going to have a accident and require to be rushed to the hospital for immediate care?
you are correct about accidents, but that is a small chance/cost versus developing a debilitating disease in old age (ie cancer, liver failure, diabetes, etc.). I would get car insurance medical coverage for car accident- other accidents I would self insure- (ie my kid breaking a leg). A family w/ 75k income would likely save ~10k. Put it in savings. yeah- this is only an option for those who actually care to work out the numbers and take care of themselves- but those are exactly the people this plan is hoping will subsidize the others.
Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Part-time Crook, How would you know when you > child is going to have a accident and require to > be rushed to the hospital for immediate care? I have unlimited $$ insurance for my family of four. Have coverage that includes private treatment or surgery in the U.S if I want to (up to $2M a year per individual), and we cannot be dropped by my insurance company even if I get AIDS, my wife gets liver cancer, my daughter gets diabetes, and my son gets a heart attack. I currently live in Mexico. Similar nice care when I lived in Switzerland. My point is, the problem in the U.S. just grew to insane levels. I donāt either support or reject this bill.
Uhh, auto insurance covers medical expenses from auto accidents. Bad example.
@Part-time Crook, You said:"I have unlimited $$ insurance for my family of four. Have coverage that includes private treatment or surgery in the U.S if I want to (up to $2M a year per individual), and we cannot be dropped by my insurance company even if I get AIDS, my wife gets liver cancer, my daughter gets diabetes, and my son gets a heart attack. I currently live in Mexico. " How is that possible? That sounds too good to be true. Do you work for the Mexican government or something or does Mexico have a public option system?
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the passage of this bill really put a bad taste in > my mouth- it reeks of pet project that is being > rushed through no matter how many absurd and > illogical policies it contains. Let me say I > donāt think we are perfect either; Iād like many > reforms but this proposal sucks. I agree with > many of those here on the constitutionality > questions. The car insurance comparisons are > ridiculous, so are all the other ones > (police/fire/ etc.) since those agencies are > public and directly funded by the state. Doctors > and hospitals will not be- so its not a valid > comparison (thank God or our hospitals might be as > technologically advanced as my local DMV). > > Comparisons of other countries are also lame IMHO > for the following points- > > 1. Japan- trying to use a basically homogeneous > nation that has a culturally instilled healthy > lifestyle to the US is ludicrous to begin with, > but even so I wonder how their system will work in > the next 50 yrs when they are projected to be > nearing 40% of ppl over 65. Maybe we should have > obligatory tai-chi in the morning- would probably > save more money than this billā¦only halfway > joking 
> > 2. Where would WORLD health care be without US > innovations? I would reach out and say that many > of the innovations are born because of our > structure. I am not sure of this but no one ever > seems to bring this up. > > 3. The ārankingsā of money spent is lame too- as > many have noted an absurd amount of money spent is > in the last couple of days of grandmaās life when > she is hooked up to the newest and priciest > machines that are not available in many parts of > the world. Our cancer patients spend an extra > 100k to like an miserable extra couple weeks. > This doesnāt happen in most parts of the world so > their expenses are far lower. I say pull the plug > on me and grandmaā¦ but thats not exactly > politically sound is it? > > I read one of those buffons say that the issue is > āall those healthy people that are not insured and > not paying into the pool to support the sickā. > This ticks me off- why should I be punished for my > health? I agree that those unlucky oneās who were > given a bad roll deserve treatment (and get it > now), but the majority of āthe sickā are people > who lead an unhealthy lifestyle and now there will > be even fewer incentives to take care on oneself. > For every kid born with some terrible pre-existing > conditions, there are 500 fat 50 year olds with > adult onset diabetes and heart disease. > > My final question is thisā¦ > > I also want someone to explain to me why, under > this new policy, any financially clever family > would not cancel their insurance , pay the > relatively small fine and routine medical expenses > and purchase insurance in the even of catastrophe > since there will no longer be pre-existing > condition exclutions. Is there something there to > prevent this? If possible it would defeat the > purpose no? BS most of the innovations come from publicly funded universities and research institutions - the things you love to hate. It has nothing to do with the current health insurance system which actually stifles innovation. There are so many people afraid to open their own business and cling on to employers for the fear of unaffordable individual health care plans. And about pulling the plug on grandma and cancer patients - spoken like a true ācompassionate conservativeā.
Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Part-time Crook, > > You said:"I have unlimited $$ insurance for my > family of four. Have coverage that includes > private treatment or surgery in the U.S if I want > to (up to $2M a year per individual), and we > cannot be dropped by my insurance company even if > I get AIDS, my wife gets liver cancer, my daughter > gets diabetes, and my son gets a heart attack. I > currently live in Mexico. " > > How is that possible? That sounds too good to be > true. Do you work for the Mexican government or > something or does Mexico have a public option > system? No, I donāt work for the government. Iām not that crook, lol. Mexico also has a public health system, but it sucks. However, for those who canāt afford private insurance, well, at least they wont be left in the street and eventually get some so so treatment. Private practice however in Mexico is very competent because the most recognized doctors studied in the United States. I only go to doctors who studied over there. Private hospital facilities and medical equipment have the same standards of those in the US, so thereās no difference in the quality of care you receive. Mexico is one of the countries with the highest wealth distribution inequality, but itās great when youāre in the right side, and private health care is one of those benefits. By law, insurance companies canāt drop someone because of preconditions, age, of a new chronic condition. Cities like Monterrey (where I live now) and Guadalajara in Mexico often receive medical tourism from the U.S. and other countries because even without insurance, you end up paying way less.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And about pulling the plug on grandma and cancer > patients - spoken like a true ācompassionate > conservativeā. Answer me this- you are in final stages of terminal whatever and have the option to spend 100k to give you a 60% chance of living 2 more weeks. Do youā¦? 1. Spend the funds out of pocket instead of passing it down to your kids to pay for college, whatever? 2. Spend public funds adding to the general burden and raising healthcare costs for all? 3. Realize youāve had a great life and that it would me more compassionate to let nature take its course rather than having a nurse change your diapers for another couple weeks? You can make me out to be cold but to me the choice is simple. Yeah, money is involved and that makes it seem nasty- but its reality. Everywhere it is noted that we spens more money for gewer results- I agree, but think its because here we go overboard on the expensive and newest treatments. If you have a tummy ache its a gastroscopy, fainted?.. MRI for you (when I fainted I was sent for an MRI and a CKG). Does this overkill of technology (net even getting into pharmesuticals here) make have an parralel result on cost/effect? Probably not. Will this plan make out decicions more cost effective? Probably not. Will this bill make the typical American lifestyle (sedentery/stressed/bad nutrition) any better? probably not. Per the WHO report posted earlier : -United States accounts for 39% of the total Global expenditure on medical equipment and devices -United States accounts for 48% of the total Global expenditure on pharmaceutical sales -United States has 5ā8 times more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units per million inhabitants than Canada and the Netherlands" Does this make our system more expensive? Iām sure it does. Does it make us better? I have no idea. Does the bill address any of these questions? I donāt think so.
I should as a taxpayer and subsidizier of other peoples health care costs be able to dictate how they live their life. We as a public should be able to determine what someone can and cannot eat, how much exercise they must obtain each week, limit television watching, they cannot smoke, must drink gallon of water a day, and not just tap water this has to be water made from reverse osmosis. Can only have 3 kids, and must be below the age of 35 to have kids, chance of complications increase dramatically after 35. No more risky activities that could lead to an incident that could increase health care costs. You must maintain your weight within an acceptable range. If we do this, everyone will be much healthier, society will be better because you are happier if you are healthy, and you have greater potential if you are healthy. The ends justify the means right. Everyone should be more than willing to give up their unhealthy behavior in the name of social health.
We need MattLikesHitler to talk about the bill. Herr MLH! Herr MLH!
Rydex Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I should as a taxpayer and subsidizier of other > peoples health care costs be able to dictate how > they live their life. We as a public should be > able to determine what someone can and cannot eat, > how much exercise they must obtain each week, > limit television watching, they cannot smoke, must > drink gallon of water a day, and not just tap > water this has to be water made from reverse > osmosis. Can only have 3 kids, and must be below > the age of 35 to have kids, chance of > complications increase dramatically after 35. No > more risky activities that could lead to an > incident that could increase health care costs. > You must maintain your weight within an acceptable > range. > > If we do this, everyone will be much healthier, > society will be better because you are happier if > you are healthy, and you have greater potential if > you are healthy. The ends justify the means > right. Everyone should be more than willing to > give up their unhealthy behavior in the name of > social health. Actually thats a good idea. Just like charging people for using paper/ plastic bags instead of bringing their own bags, paying people to recycle, getting rid of fatty food and sodas in schools etc.
Rydex - just like car insurance. Another failed piece of that never ending comparison. Got a pre-existing red corvette- extra premium for you!! Lead a risky lifestyle- your record = higher rates 
except for the minor details of not actually HAVING to drive a car on public roads and mandated coverage being liability for damage to OTHERS.
frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sublimity Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > - liberty: coercion of the state on the > > individual (forced to buy health insurance) > > Well, some of my tax money (past and future) has > gone to fund a war I was against. A significant > percentage of the population is not allowed to get > married to the person they want to marry in the > state where they live. There are states in the US > where you canāt buy booze on Sundays, even though > I might really want to. > > Republicans are all about protecting the liberty > and rights of citizens as long as those citizens > share the same values. (I wrote this on my facebook wall in a discussion with my real friends. Sorry, AF members arenāt real friends, lol.) Itās an interesting question and could delve deeply into philosophyā¦such as what constitutes a right or a privilege, for example, those who are {liberal, conservative} would see healthcare as a {right, privilege}. There are some libertarians that are very extreme and go to the logical conclusion of not wanting to be forced to pay for anything, aka: not paying for police, fire, military, etc. Iām definitely not an extremist (though it might seem that way sometimes, haha) since I donāt worship logical correctness at the expense of practical concerns. I think thatās itās necessary that we contribute some baseline to the society we live in. Although this may violate logical consistency, I relent on strict logical/axiomatic reasoning and yield to economic realities. As one example of many, paying for the police, who in turn protects your wealth, is one way to realize economies of scale that are unavailable when paying for protection on an individual and private basis. Imagine living in a gang- and/or organized- crime infested neighborhood, youād have to spend close to 100% of your wealth just to protect it - and this doesnāt even take into account other things like road maintenance other public infrastructure. Paying up to ~40% of your wages to taxes is not ideal, but itās a bargain compared to what it would truly cost to enjoy the benefits of police, military, infrastructure, etc. I think that health insurance is slightly different in the sense that we are being forced to pay a corporation, which doesnāt have the same incentives as a government. Corporations serve their shareholders (investors), instead of stakeholders (those who live in the society those corporations exist in). In order to more align the incentives of the corporations, weād have to have extra layers of laws and regulations - and even then thereād be ways that they could act that violate the spirit of these laws and regulation, even if they conform to the letter. In spite of my libertarian leanings, if we were forced to pay the government instead of corporations, with the huge qualification that it was done efficiently and well, I would prefer that. So long story short, I donāt see being forced to pay for healthcare to a corporation in the same class as paying for those other services you mentionedā¦though that is highly subject to debate. : )
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listen if you donāt like America you can get the > hell out! > > (you have no idea how much fun I have saying that > to whiny republicans). I think you need to realize that there not much difference between the Democratic and Republican party. Both have scumbag politicians as leaders looking to do as little as possible for us for the most bribes, er donations. Both parties supporters are whiny. Just sayinā.
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > frisian Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > sublimity Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > - liberty: coercion of the state on the > > > individual (forced to buy health insurance) > > > > Well, some of my tax money (past and future) > has > > gone to fund a war I was against. A > significant > > percentage of the population is not allowed to > get > > married to the person they want to marry in the > > state where they live. There are states in the > US > > where you canāt buy booze on Sundays, even > though > > I might really want to. > > > > Republicans are all about protecting the > liberty > > and rights of citizens as long as those > citizens > > share the same values. > > (I wrote this on my facebook wall in a discussion > with my real friends. Sorry, AF members arenāt > real friends, lol.) > > Itās an interesting question and could delve > deeply into philosophyā¦such as what constitutes > a right or a privilege, for example, those who are > {liberal, conservative} would see healthcare as a > {right, privilege}. There are some libertarians > that are very extreme and go to the logical > conclusion of not wanting to be forced to pay for > anything, aka: not paying for police, fire, > military, etc. Iām definitely not an extremist > (though it might seem that way sometimes, haha) > since I donāt worship logical correctness at the > expense of practical concerns. > > I think thatās itās necessary that we contribute > some baseline to the society we live in. Although > this may violate logical consistency, I relent on > strict logical/axiomatic reasoning and yield to > economic realities. As one example of many, paying > for the police, who in turn protects your wealth, > is one way to realize economies of scale that are > unavailable when paying for protection on an > individual and private basis. Imagine living in a > gang- and/or organized- crime infested > neighborhood, youād have to spend close to 100% of > your wealth just to protect it - and this doesnāt > even take into account other things like road > maintenance other public infrastructure. Paying up > to ~40% of your wages to taxes is not ideal, but > itās a bargain compared to what it would truly > cost to enjoy the benefits of police, military, > infrastructure, etc. > > I think that health insurance is slightly > different in the sense that we are being forced to > pay a corporation, which doesnāt have the same > incentives as a government. Corporations serve > their shareholders (investors), instead of > stakeholders (those who live in the society those > corporations exist in). In order to more align the > incentives of the corporations, weād have to have > extra layers of laws and regulations - and even > then thereād be ways that they could act that > violate the spirit of these laws and regulation, > even if they conform to the letter. In spite of my > libertarian leanings, if we were forced to pay the > government instead of corporations, with the huge > qualification that it was done efficiently and > well, I would prefer that. > > So long story short, I donāt see being forced to > pay for healthcare to a corporation in the same > class as paying for those other services you > mentionedā¦though that is highly subject to > debate. : ) I agree thats why we need a public option. I donāt agree with the clause of forcing everyone to buy insurance from private companies. Who would you trust to make your health decisions: a bureaucrat with no incentive in denying you healthcare when you are sick or a private exec whose bonus depends on the number cases he/she denies.
marcus phoenix - do you have a response to my point? Also- I forgot to respond to your comment: āBS most of the innovations come from publicly funded universities and research institutions - the things you love to hate.ā where did I say I hate them? I said our āsystemā as is spurs innovation and R&D. This includes universities, grant receiving research facilities, the NIH, etc. The point I was making was that our system seems to be facilitating a lot.
- Where would WORLD health care be without US innovations? I would reach out and say that many of the innovations are born because of our structure. I am not sure of this but no one ever seems to bring this up. They would be just fine as Asia, Germany, Sweden, Norway can provide the same and better innovations than the USA and guess what their structure is not super flawed. Also have you done a survey to see if Germany, Sweden, Norway etc are pulling the plug on people? Or you seriously think that US hospitals are that much more advanced?