health insurance

In before the lock!

SVreX wrote: Wait a minute... Almost every retired person I know has some form of healthcare coverage, and always has. They have "taken care of their own needs". Why do you feel the need for a government system, and why do you feel that without one we have "no system"?

I think the confusion here is you are specifically talking about Insurance, while I am talking about general healthcare (which includes insurance).

Your retired friends I am sure have supplemental insurance, but I am also sure they heavily depend on government funded Medicare (and whatever state programs etc.), which I am sure is taking on the vast majority of the costs. So they are very much not "taking care of their own needs". To remove the government from healthcare is to removed medicare, and I think you will agree, there is pretty much NO way that is going to happen (that is what I was referring to).

(by 'no system" I mean "no government system"... sorry, that was a bit vague)

SVreX wrote: I'm not sure how you meant that, but it sounds like, "We are going to shove it down your throat whether you like it or not, so get ready to gag and pretend you love it". which is....basically not going to happen.

First of all, let me say, I am not pretending to stand behind any system, just discussing the options (this is why I was curious why a poster above put themselves into the discussion, neither "side" here is doing a great job).

But I do find it pretty strange that a common argument seems to be "keep government out of my healthcare!" but at the same time are still very much "but keep those government Medicare checks coming! and all the controls and regulations surrounding that!"

SVreX wrote: May I suggest it is an attitude on the part of the consumers? As medical technology and methods advance, we feel we have the right to whatever is available. We want full coverage for any treatment we desire, with no exemptions, and the freedom to choose any doctor or treatment we want. There is a cost to that. We are not willing to limit costs. This is the core problem with the ACA (and the entire healthcare system). It can't work, because the core logic is faulty. We can't have unlimited healthcare unless we are prepared to also have unlimited healthcare costs. If we want to limit the costs, we have to be prepared to limit the coverage.

Not being willing to limit costs is the fault of the consumer? What about $50 hospital aspirins or other items often marked up 100's of times the actual cost? What about CEO compensation at most health insurance companies? I'd argue those hits to the bill and bottom line contribute mightily to the cost of healthcare. To just blame "the victim" here is not taking into account the whole picture.

poopshovel wrote: May I add: When you are required by law to purchase a product or service, do you think the price of that product or service is going to increase, or decrease?

Since Auto insurance is forced on everyone in my state then I'd say we need to reform that too. Course that has worked out pretty well as most times when someone hits you, you're covered. This health insurance will work the same way. The only better option would be a single payer plan but then we'd have the great devil, socialism. It works in most industrial countries but won't here, or so the advocates of the rich and powerful would tell us.

Datsun1500 wrote: Why does there need to be some type of alternative plan? Why do you feel it's necessary for the government to solve it for you? Here's a plan, you take care of your needs, I'll take care of mine.

The problem with that is it assumes that you will always be able to handle your emergencies alone. That or the emergencies of your family. When you can't your tune will change. You'll go from resenting being a part of a society to wanting to be a part of one as it will give you the help you need. Even if you haven't contributed in the past. Society will take care of you because it's made up of more generous people than people who would willing watch you suffer. This is the reason why society was created. To collectively care for each other as a community/society is always stronger than the individual. Thinking you never will need help is always wrong. At some point you will need assistance. You should pay it forward now while you can.

SVreX wrote: Almost every retired person I know has some form of healthcare coverage, and always has. They have "taken care of their own needs". Why do you feel the need for a government system, and why do you feel that without one we have "no system"?

That's wishful thinking. I know plenty of baby boomers, retirees, whatever...who don't have insurance OR have insufficient insurance. Insufficient insurance would be the people who have a $6k out of pocket maximum who have no hope of ever seeing $6k in their life.

We had no system because the past environment was no longer sustainable. In the future it would've broken or broken our society. We would've ended up a third world country and in many ways we still are. Whether the current system will break into the future remains to be seen.

SVreX wrote: Is it really a surprise that the people who used to get pissed off at the concept of socialized medicine STILL get pissed off at the concept of socialized medicine?

This isn't socialized medicine no matter how badly you want it to be. For profit insurance companies still make a profit from it. Citizens still have to pay individually for coverage. The government regulates this industry much like telecommunications and stock trading. Telecommunications or stock trading aren't socialist. Neither is this. Far, far from it actually.

yamaha wrote:

SVreX wrote: I'm not sure how you meant that, but it sounds like, "We are going to shove it down your throat whether you like it or not, so get ready to gag and pretend you love it". which is....basically not going to happen.

Which is pretty much what happened.

Nah. There was an election. The electorate chose this path by a popular vote so cut the bull about this being forced on people. Let's all have some personal accountability. We elected Obama by our agreed upon method of rule by popular vote. If you don't like that, start your own dictatorship. (You're a good and fair guy so that might not be a bad place to live. I'd rather not have to follow your religion but maybe you wouldn't start a theocracy.) If the other guy had won we could go back to over charged insurance being yanked out from under you the minute you needed it.

Flight Service wrote: I will just put this here for the folks complaining about ACA. You're just late to the game I have been bitching about since I started working. Insurance companies are regulated and sponsored gambling, and when they loose they try to welch on the bet. Just an FYI the ACA draft 1 was written by the Heritage Foundation and pushed by Newt Gingrich unsuccessfully in the late 90's. IMHO: Things that need to punished for being in existence. 5 Lawyers 4 Politicians 3 SOB that stole my ATV when I was a kid 1 Insurance companies

Notice what this graph is specifically NOT telling you: the inflation rate for healthcare services, not just the overall inflation rate. Like college tuition, health care costs have been rising at a rate that far outstrips the overall inflation rate, so that line actually falls somewhere between the top and bottom lines.

It's very easy to generate outrage when you only tell part of the story.

Here is a relevant piece on how the ACA has changed hospital care.

3 Ways Obamacare Is Changing How A Hospital Cares For Patients

Here's the bullet points for the lazy.

1. Checklists - Surgeons and nurses at the hospital now carry around a sheet of paper listing every simple step they're supposed to perform. Did the patient get her antibiotics on time? Check. Did the catheter come out on time? Check. Research has long shown that documenting simple steps can significantly reduce medical error. Yet hospitals have a hard time implementing checklists, because doctors don't really like them. "When we came up with this, I kind of felt a little silly for the first few weeks following a sort of checklist or menu," surgeon Eric Espinal says. But, he concedes, pilots and NASCAR drivers use checklists because they reduce complications. So checklists could be better for patients — and, in the new system, the hospital's bottom line.

2. A Team Mentality - Traditionally, Medicare paid hospitals separately from doctors. But in the experiment at the Akron hospital, Medicare will pay the entire team together, so everyone will share in the savings or costs of each surgery. It's meant to foster a culture of collaboration. Berkovitz, the cardiologist, says this change hasn't been easy. "Physicians are a dedicated, strong-willed independent lot, and many of them went into the practice of medicine because traditionally you've been able to be the captain of your ship, and that's not always equated to good care," he says.

3. Helping Patients After They Go Home - Before the ACA, doctors didn't have a financial incentive to prevent patients from being readmitted to the hospital. Now, once doctors discharge someone, it's in their financial interest to make sure their patients stay healthy even when they're at home. In some cases, that means sending nurses from the hospital to check up on patients once they've gone home.

Duke wrote: Notice what this graph is specifically **NOT** telling you: the inflation rate for healthcare services, not just the overall inflation rate. Like college tuition, health care costs have been rising at a rate that far outstrips the overall inflation rate, so that line actually falls somewhere between the top and bottom lines. It's very easy to generate outrage when you only tell part of the story.

Bury your head in the sand all you want. It's relevant data. If you care to post your own counter point graph, feel free. You'll find if they are accurate they all show the same unsustainable curves.

Xceler8x wrote:

SVreX wrote: May I suggest it is an attitude on the part of the consumers? As medical technology and methods advance, we feel we have the right to whatever is available. We want full coverage for any treatment we desire, with no exemptions, and the freedom to choose any doctor or treatment we want. There is a cost to that. We are not willing to limit costs. This is the core problem with the ACA (and the entire healthcare system). It can't work, because the core logic is faulty. We can't have unlimited healthcare unless we are prepared to also have unlimited healthcare costs. If we want to limit the costs, we have to be prepared to limit the coverage.

Not being willing to limit costs is the fault of the consumer? What about $50 hospital aspirins or other items often marked up 100's of times the actual cost? What about CEO compensation at most health insurance companies? I'd argue those hits to the bill and bottom line contribute mightily to the cost of healthcare. To just blame "the victim" here is not taking into account the whole picture.

Hold up.

You're trying to blame $50 aspirins on...... insurance?

Not sure if trolling....

Xceler8x wrote: Here is a relevant piece on how the ACA has changed hospital care. 3 Ways Obamacare Is Changing How A Hospital Cares For Patients Here's the bullet points for the lazy. 1. Checklists - Surgeons and nurses at the hospital now carry around a sheet of paper listing every simple step they're supposed to perform. Did the patient get her antibiotics on time? Check. Did the catheter come out on time? Check. Research has long shown that documenting simple steps can significantly reduce medical error. Yet hospitals have a hard time implementing checklists, because doctors don't really like them. "When we came up with this, I kind of felt a little silly for the first few weeks following a sort of checklist or menu," surgeon Eric Espinal says. But, he concedes, pilots and NASCAR drivers use checklists because they reduce complications. So checklists could be better for patients — and, in the new system, the hospital's bottom line. 2. A Team Mentality - Traditionally, Medicare paid hospitals separately from doctors. But in the experiment at the Akron hospital, Medicare will pay the entire team together, so everyone will share in the savings or costs of each surgery. It's meant to foster a culture of collaboration. Berkovitz, the cardiologist, says this change hasn't been easy. "Physicians are a dedicated, strong-willed independent lot, and many of them went into the practice of medicine because traditionally you've been able to be the captain of your ship, and that's not always equated to good care," he says. 3. Helping Patients After They Go Home - Before the ACA, doctors didn't have a financial incentive to prevent patients from being readmitted to the hospital. Now, once doctors discharge someone, it's in their financial interest to make sure their patients stay healthy even when they're at home. In some cases, that means sending nurses from the hospital to check up on patients once they've gone home.

At least 2 of these things do not represent a decrease in healthcare costs.

Xceler8x wrote:

SVreX wrote: We are not willing to limit costs. This is the core problem with the ACA (and the entire healthcare system). It can't work, because the core logic is faulty. We can't have unlimited healthcare unless we are prepared to also have unlimited healthcare costs. If we want to limit the costs, we have to be prepared to limit the coverage.

Not being willing to limit costs is the fault of the consumer? What about $50 hospital aspirins or other items often marked up 100's of times the actual cost?

Of course, you do realize that those items are marked up for the people who will pay, in order to cover the cost of those people who won't pay. Just like socialized anything. Except that somehow, those with the socialized medicine boner (as SVreX so eloquently put it) never want to hear or admit this. It's always got to be the evil corporations screwing the poor common folks over.

Xceler8x wrote: Nah. There was an election. The electorate chose this path by a popular vote so cut the bull about this being forced on people. Let's all have some personal accountability. We elected Obama by our agreed upon method of rule by popular vote. If you don't like that, start your own dictatorship. (You're a good and fair guy so that might not be a bad place to live. I'd rather not have to follow your religion but maybe you wouldn't start a theocracy.) If the other guy had won we could go back to over charged insurance being yanked out from under you the minute you needed it.

I would probably get bored of being a dictator of this country.......I'd probably have to kill off 1/3 of the population for pet peeves of mine. I promise it would be better than this 50% "representation" bullE36 M3 that parties have led us into though.

The only thing honest about a discussion on healthcare is that it will never be about healthcare.

In reply to Datsun1500:

It isn't your fault.....no matter what anyone tries to say about it, you're doing it right.

I hope to have pumpkin AND sweet potato pie this weekend.

Strongly worded opinion

Gay slur

I really just wish this was a world where rhubarb pie was more available.

It's good... really!

But it's sooo hard to find!

Swank Force One wrote: Hold up. You're trying to blame $50 aspirins on...... insurance? Not sure if trolling....

The cause of $50 aspirins is insurance, quite similar to how the cause of me paying around $6000 a semester for tuition at a state school is the fault of student loans. "Hey, they can afford it."

My sister had a bad allergic reaction in Canada last year, where visitors pay for medical care at cost, guess how much an ambulance ride and a benadryl shot was without insurance companies inflating the hell out of everything? I don't remember the exact number, but it was definitely 3 digits, something like $600. You could easily tack a zero onto that in the US.

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Hold up. You're trying to blame $50 aspirins on...... insurance? Not sure if trolling....

The cause of $50 aspirins is insurance, quite similar to how the cause of me paying around $6000 a semester for tuition at a state school is the fault of student loans. "Hey, they can afford it." My sister had a bad allergic reaction in Canada last year, where visitors pay for medical care at cost, guess how much an ambulance ride and a benadryl shot was without insurance companies inflating the hell out of everything? I don't remember the exact number, but it was definitely 3 digits, something like $600. You could easily tack a zero onto that in the US.

Ok let me rephrase:

Blaming insurance for $50 aspirin is incorrect.

Discussions of pie piss me off more than political discussions.

One is a natural (though sometimes unpleasant) discussion of things that matter to people and they care about, sometimes excessively or passionately. Often those conversations elevate to being heated or inappropriate, just like any conversation about something that matters to people.

The other is a rather rude way of sticking one's fingers in their ears and yelling at everyone else to "STOP TALKING, STOP TALKING".

Why click on the berkeleying thread if you don't want to read it?

SVreX wrote: Discussions of pie piss me off more than political discussions. One is a natural (though sometimes unpleasant) discussion of things that matter to people and they care about, sometimes excessively or passionately. Often those conversations elevate to being heated or inappropriate, just like any conversation about something that matters to people. The other is a rather rude way of sticking one's fingers in their ears and yelling at everyone else to "STOP TALKING, STOP TALKING". Why click on the berkeleying thread if you don't want to read it?

If I didn't want to read it, I wouldn't have clicked.

It was an interesting read, if not the same tired old arguments from both sides with no new revelations.

So instead of rudely saying STOP TALKING STOP TALKING, it's more a humorous way of poking fun at you guys.

In other words, Lighten up Francis.

z31maniac wrote: Gay slur

Feigned offense!

I think it's just a (not so) subtle way of saying:

"OK, it looks like this is going down a bad, or well worn track, maybe we should back off a bit before we all start hating each other"

Very similar to what sometimes happens at Thanksgiving / Christmas.

z31maniac wrote: Strongly worded opinion

Snarky insult, delivered backhand!

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Strongly worded opinion

Snarky insult, delivered backhand!

Something about your mother and Left Guard.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Strongly worded opinion

Snarky insult, delivered backhand!

I see you've met my mother in law.