User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 370

  1. #41
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    After managing the actuarial services contract for 5 years of the nation's largest Medicaid programs, there are not alot of dirty tricks I am not aware of regarding health care rate setting policies and practices, and general guidelines of plan profits.

    The health care bill that passed is hardly what our nation needed.

    The poor and chronically ill get HMO-level health care from Medicare and Medicaid with low deductibles.

    Do you know what would happen if they tried to slap a standard indemnituy policy on the recipients of an entitlement program? Total political chaos and all elected officials that voted for that thrown out of office, that's what.

    So, how are we expected to be thankful that we got slapped with a mandatory shitty level of care that we can be fined for if we don't carry?

    Employers are just going to pass the buck for having to ensure compensation plans are sufficient for individuals to carry that burden, thus making products/services more expensive for consumers and businesses alike, and providiing even more energy for the uptick of inflation.

    The simplest solution would have been to allow uninsured individuals to "buy-in" to their state's Medicaid HMO system. They would receive a good managed care policy with a monthly rate between $100-$200 (about 80% of each state's population) and NO DEDUCTIBLES as experienced in an indemnity plan.

    This would not even hurt the private sector, as the plans that participate are private carriers that also have a Medicaid HMO product, whose enrollment would increase over current/historical levels, and thus increase cash flow and profitability consider the residual nature of mandatory enrollment for all citizens.

    But that would be too easy. There would be no opportunity to earmark funds for bridges, junkets, or other common pork barrel items if we did it that way. Heaven help us if we as a nation ever listen to common sense.
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  2. #42
    Senior Member Lightyear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    And about "helping the disadvantaged, the destitute, the poor and dying"... you get credit for that if it's what you do in your free time. Using the government's force to extort other people's money to give to your favorite charities isn't compassion.
    It's not about compassion, compassion can be a very feeble emotion and I wouldn't want my health to depend on someone else feeling charitable at the moment or not. It's about having a moral conviction that everyone has the right to access basic health care and based on that conviction trying to build through legislation a health care network that covers as many people as possible. And since the government happens to have the most widespread influence and is not likely to go bust by next week you put the regulation of health care in the government's hands.

    I also really don't get why Americans shout "Socialism! Socialism!" as soon as the government gets involved a little bit in something, a lot of them don't seem to have the slightest clue what Socialism is all about. I was brought up in East Germany which was a Socialist country until 1989 and Socialism isn't this evil, bad thing it is portrayed to be, my mum would probably love to tell you how she misses Socialist East Germany because she had a steady, secure job and didn't have any problems whatsoever to bring up two kids on her own which would be much harder in today's society. But that doesn't matter anyway since this health care reform is about as Socialist as my left shoe, the UK, Germany and many other countries in Europe have universal health care and they are certainly not Socialist countries.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    The simplest solution would have been to allow uninsured individuals to "buy-in" to their state's Medicaid HMO system. They would receive a good managed care policy with a monthly rate between $100-$200 (about 80% of each state's population) and NO DEDUCTIBLES as experienced in an indemnity plan.
    This is so simple and so pragmatic that I can't believe I haven't seen it suggested before. It sounds like the perfect stopgap until we can actually hammer out a proper health care bill that works. (i.e., never.)

    This leads me to believe that there is some giant problem with this idea that we aren't thinking of.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  4. #44
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I think Europeans who are shocked at this don't understand how rooted the notion of self-reliance is in American society.
    We're no strangers to Conservatism. I think we invented it, actually. We've just moved on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #45
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    This leads me to believe that there is some giant problem with this idea that we aren't thinking of.
    Some of the people who would thus qualify would be some of the highest cost users (people with pre-existing medical conditions etc.)

    Until the 60's the US and Canada shared the same kind of system and similar costs. It is interesting to see how the differing philosophies and systems created to manage health care changed our experiences so distinctly.

    Here is a great read for those who are interested. A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare
    The caricature of 'socialized medicine' is used by corporate interests to confuse Americans and maintain their bottom lines instead of patients' health.


    I guess the disappointing part is that it doesn't look like the bill passed has taken the lessons already learned by other countries and used them to make something better. When we moved here, someone said to us that we had socialist medicine in Canada (never heard anyone ever say that before) and these phrases are used as some kind of propoganda against universal health care in general.

    That being said, with the legislation passed, costs associated will be up-front and people will have the benefit of competition and choice, just as they do for other forms of insurance. That supposedly should keep the financial burden to an individual controllable ...
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  6. #46
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Do you think a health care bill here is a compromise to individual freedom? What about posterity?

    Does a lack of health care benefit the generations to come? Or compromise it?

    How can one have true freedom if they cannot access a basic level of health? It is tantamount to being uneducated. Why then must everyone go to school? Do you think that is a violation of the constitution as well?

    These are honest and curious questions, so please don't read anything else into them.
    1.) Forcing people to buy health insurance definitely compromises individual freedom. More generally, extending the control that government has over the lives and daily choices of individuals is almost always detrimental to net individual freedom, particularly in relation to the core freedoms that make all lesser freedoms possible (the "clients" in a patron-client relationship are not very empowered).

    2.) Massively expensive and demographically unsustainable entitlement programs tend to have adverse effects on future generations, yes.

    3.) First of all, I think you vastly over-estimate the negative health outcomes of the existing system (not that its great, but there are no legions of people in dire physical health as a result of not having public health care). "Basic" heath care is not a general problem in terms of health results. Second, you will notice in my post quoting Magic Poriferan that health-care as a tax-supported public good is not unconstitutional-incidentally, I think that's a much worse system than forcing everyone to buy private health insurance, but the latter option is currently unconstitutional. If the government (putting aside the fact that education is a state perogative) required that all parents pay for their kids to be educated in private schools, then that would be unconstitutional.

    Finally, I'm not actually opposed to expanding health coverage in an economically sustainable and minimally intrusive way (such as through tax credits for low-income families after instituting regulatory reforms so that we can find out what a free market in American health care would actually look like).
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 03-22-2010 at 06:00 PM. Reason: forgot a word

  7. #47
    Senior Member Lightyear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    After managing the actuarial services contract for 5 years of the nation's largest Medicaid programs, there are not alot of dirty tricks I am not aware of regarding health care rate setting policies and practices, and general guidelines of plan profits.

    The health care bill that passed is hardly what our nation needed.

    The poor and chronically ill get HMO-level health care from Medicare and Medicaid with low deductibles.

    Do you know what would happen if they tried to slap a standard indemnituy policy on the recipients of an entitlement program? Total political chaos and all elected officials that voted for that thrown out of office, that's what.

    So, how are we expected to be thankful that we got slapped with a mandatory shitty level of care that we can be fined for if we don't carry?

    Employers are just going to pass the buck for having to ensure compensation plans are sufficient for individuals to carry that burden, thus making products/services more expensive for consumers and businesses alike, and providiing even more energy for the uptick of inflation.

    The simplest solution would have been to allow uninsured individuals to "buy-in" to their state's Medicaid HMO system. They would receive a good managed care policy with a monthly rate between $100-$200 (about 80% of each state's population) and NO DEDUCTIBLES as experienced in an indemnity plan.

    This would not even hurt the private sector, as the plans that participate are private carriers that also have a Medicaid HMO product, whose enrollment would increase over current/historical levels, and thus increase cash flow and profitability consider the residual nature of mandatory enrollment for all citizens.

    But that would be too easy. There would be no opportunity to earmark funds for bridges, junkets, or other common pork barrel items if we did it that way. Heaven help us if we as a nation ever listen to common sense.

    That's the kind of answer I was actually looking for concering the health care bill. I want to have facts what it is all about instead of people fearmongering by waving the evil flag of Socialism and in general just getting superemotional.

  8. #48
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSprout View Post
    Lowtech Redneck:

    First, not even the mandatory purchase of health insurance is blatantly unconstitutional because it arguably falls under the Commerce Clause (in terms of powers of the federal government), which has been used to force individuals to engage in commerce by the Supreme Court (Wickard v. Filburn, for instance).
    There are lots of things justified by a unbounded interpretation of the commerce clause that are blatantly unconstitutional, just as that recent eminent domain decision is unconstitutional despite sophistic interpretations to the contrary.

  9. #49
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightyear View Post
    I was brought up in East Germany which was a Socialist country until 1989 and Socialism isn't this evil, bad thing it is portrayed to be
    Funny how it was East Germany that had to keep everyone in...

  10. #50
    /X\(:: :: )/X\ BlueSprout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    pfni
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    There are lots of things justified by a unbounded interpretation of the commerce clause that are blatantly unconstitutional, just as that recent eminent domain decision is unconstitutional despite sophistic interpretations to the contrary.
    The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality, even if you or others disagree with their interpretation. The fact remains that, since 1930s, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted very broadly by the SC. And, though individual liberty is a priority, the Congress needs only to show that it has a rational interest in regulation when broader economic concerns are involved as long as there are no specific Constitutional prohibitions on their activity. Most recently, in Gonzales vs. Carhart (2007), the Court even found that the Congress can regulate medical practices, so medical care is not exempt from its reach, either.
    Type: INFP Enneagram: 4
    Fi>Si>Ne>Te>Fe>Se>Ti>Ni

    cataplum!

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS: Health Care Decision
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 09:44 PM
  2. Should the US move towards universal health care?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM
  3. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  4. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  5. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO