Regardless of the public option, there NEEDS to be SOME health reform

2009-09-15 09:44:00

#1

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5989|College Park, MD

I'm on the fence about a public option for health care, but I completely support other elements of the healthcare reform being pushed. The pre-existing condition thing is by far one of the biggest abominations of this country.

My mother was under my dad's employer's health insurance plan while they were married. During that time, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and began to undergo therapy and take medication for it, all under the health insurance plan. When my parents divorced, my mother had to find a new insurance plan. It took her about a year to find a company that would take her (I think she ultimately had to apply for the Maryland State Health Insurance plan). All because she had a pre-existing condition.

Nevermind that people don't have control of whether they get bipolar disorder. It's not like heart disease or obesity where more often than not, the condition was caused by the person's actions (eating unhealthily). It's not like a torn ACL where the person wouldn't have gotten it if they hadn't run so hard or something like that. It's not like a crack addiction. It's a god damn mental illness that the sufferer had NO say in getting, and the fact that most health insurance companies wouldn't take her shows the inhumanity of these companies. If no public option is made in the current bill (which I wouldn't really be against), then at the least make it so the insurance companies can't pull crap like this.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-09-15 10:04:44

#2

GATOR591957: Member; +84|6914

The problem I see is no one is saying that health care is fine the way it is. As much as Mr. Obama wants you to think that the Republicans are against health care reform, they aren't. What they and thousands of ordinary American citizens are saying is they don't like the current bill in the house. The Bluedogs are to come out with their version today. We'll see what that encompasses.

For a President who says the time for bickering is over. He sure is starting some real fights. Example: if you disagree with his bill, you are preventing progress. For him to say, "I want a bi-partisan bill" yet he refused a meeting proposed May 14th I believe where Republicans wanted to talk about health care. I see a real dicontimy here. He is following traditional politics by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. So where is the change?????

2009-09-15 12:40:35

#3

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7002|US

I think tort reform would be a good start. There are some details to iron out, but both sides can admit the current system is not ideal.

2009-09-15 14:01:00

#4

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5898|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.

2009-09-15 14:06:24

#5

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7023|Salt Lake City

nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.

So how would one purchase insurance, tax credit or otherwise, if the insurance companies won't accept them anyway. You would either need a government option health plan, or a mandate that insurance companies accept everyone.

2009-09-15 14:28:30

#6

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6843

nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.

I think the cost of healthcare for everyone, existing condition or otherwise, should be borne on (spread across) the entire general populace, by means public or means of regulated insurance. So you're born with motor neurone disease: "So you can't afford treatment and noone will insure you - so long sucker, enjoy the crippling ailment." That ain't a land of equal opportunity.

In Ireland we have a dual public/private insurance scheme where the public scheme is not permitted to cancel or refuse cover (in addition to universal healthcare). I think it works relatively well. From what I hear your main problem seems to be lawsuits, doctors insuring themselves against same and passing on the cost.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-09-15 14:31:14)

2009-09-15 14:33:17

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

CameronPoe wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.
I think the cost of healthcare for everyone, existing condition or otherwise, should be borne on (spread across) the entire general populace, by means public or means of regulated insurance. So you're born with motor neurone disease: "So you can't afford treatment and noone will insure you - so long sucker, enjoy the crippling ailment." That ain't a land of equal opportunity.

In Ireland we have a dual public/private insurance scheme where the public scheme is not permitted to cancel or refuse cover (in addition to universal healthcare). I think it works relatively well. From what I hear your main problem seems to be lawsuits, doctors insuring themselves against same and passing on the cost.

Some doctors have to pay over $100,000 a year in medical malpractice insurance. They're overworked, make mistakes and then are slammed with lawsuits by ambulance chasers (lawyers that specialize in malpractice and wrongful death cases). Six figures a year just to cover your ass if you make a mistake at your job is kind of insane, no?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-09-15 14:58:32

#8

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6282|Truthistan

Reform is needed

IMO a public option is necessary, but a co-op program has some appeal too and might be less prone to scuttling by political whims. Perhaps social security should be a co-op too, that way the govt wouldn't be able to steal the money out of the trust accounts.

But whatever the option, public or co-op, the most important thing is that it should be voluntary and no person should be denied access to the program based on income levels. If you want in, you should be able to buy yourself in. That way if you are going to switch jobs you can buy into the portable public program and move to another employer or another state or whatever.

What is going to piss people off are
1. if its mandatory
2. if its not open to everyone, or if the govt is limiting entry through income guidelines it sets OR
3. if the states are involved in the creation or funding of the program then there will be no "national" program because of places like South Carolina or Texas where, to put it really really bluntly the govts govern to the lowest common idiot who would rather poke his own eye out than see the govt work to help a blind man see. I call it the inverse-Christian attitude. Ask "What would Jesus do?" and then proceed to do the opposite.

Anyway I call it as I see it.

2009-09-15 15:11:29

#9

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6282|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.
I think the cost of healthcare for everyone, existing condition or otherwise, should be borne on (spread across) the entire general populace, by means public or means of regulated insurance. So you're born with motor neurone disease: "So you can't afford treatment and noone will insure you - so long sucker, enjoy the crippling ailment." That ain't a land of equal opportunity.

In Ireland we have a dual public/private insurance scheme where the public scheme is not permitted to cancel or refuse cover (in addition to universal healthcare). I think it works relatively well. From what I hear your main problem seems to be lawsuits, doctors insuring themselves against same and passing on the cost.
Some doctors have to pay over $100,000 a year in medical malpractice insurance. They're overworked, make mistakes and then are slammed with lawsuits by ambulance chasers (lawyers that specialize in malpractice and wrongful death cases). Six figures a year just to cover your ass if you make a mistake at your job is kind of insane, no?

Yes, its insane and the system would be better off if medical mistakes were handled by disciplinary boards who could order extra training and suspensions for mistakes. And pull licenses for really egregious actions.

It would be a fine social contract if people received health care without "out of pocket" expenses under a national system and in return have restrictions or even eliminate lawsuits against doctors.

But, until that happens, the tort reform debate looks like doctors wanting their cake and eating it too because there is no guarantee that cost saving will be passed on to consumers nor are doctors offering any alternative safeguards for patients. Lawsuits are after all a wild west regulatory regime where people sue when they get hurt and we accept a windfall as a penalty to deter others. The flip side is a regulatory regime that requires taxation and monitoring to ensure compliance with regulations. So far the American public has chosen the wild west approach. Its clear that in other countries that have nationalized health care that those societies have chosen to make it really hard to sue doctors and win.

2009-09-15 15:15:46

#10

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5989|College Park, MD

nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.

So what of folks like my mother? Just leave them for dead/anguish over something they had no control over? Barbaric. I'm hardly what folks would consider "socialist" or even "democrat" but really, that's too much for me.

2009-09-15 15:23:45

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6888|132 and Bush

JohnG@lt wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.
I think the cost of healthcare for everyone, existing condition or otherwise, should be borne on (spread across) the entire general populace, by means public or means of regulated insurance. So you're born with motor neurone disease: "So you can't afford treatment and noone will insure you - so long sucker, enjoy the crippling ailment." That ain't a land of equal opportunity.

In Ireland we have a dual public/private insurance scheme where the public scheme is not permitted to cancel or refuse cover (in addition to universal healthcare). I think it works relatively well. From what I hear your main problem seems to be lawsuits, doctors insuring themselves against same and passing on the cost.
Some doctors have to pay over $100,000 a year in medical malpractice insurance. They're overworked, make mistakes and then are slammed with lawsuits by ambulance chasers (lawyers that specialize in malpractice and wrongful death cases). Six figures a year just to cover your ass if you make a mistake at your job is kind of insane, no?

Also, punitive damages are often excessive imo. Of course this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. But every case shouldn't equate to a winning lottery ticket. In the end it's all of us that pay.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-15 15:44:56

#12

GATOR591957: Member; +84|6914

The problem with Co-Op's is they would be government run until they get established. Best case scenario is 1-1/2 to 2 yrs. down the road. I agree with the premise however.

Insurance companies will not be able to last under the pre-existing illness and no cap clauses in the bill. But I am of the firm belief that is the intent. Run the insurance companies out. Move the government in. Just my opinion.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2009-09-15 15:46:36)

2009-09-15 15:57:46

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

GATOR591957 wrote:
The problem with Co-Op's is they would be government run until they get established. Best case scenario is 1-1/2 to 2 yrs. down the road. I agree with the premise however.

Insurance companies will not be able to last under the pre-existing illness and no cap clauses in the bill. But I am of the firm belief that is the intent. Run the insurance companies out. Move the government in. Just my opinion.

The real problem with co-ops is that they'll never be competitve. Blue Cross/Blue Shield used to be a co-op but it was priced out of the market because it accepted everyone while other insurance companies didn't. So, what happened was all the people who couldn't get coverage from other insurance companies chose BC/BS. Even though it was a non-profit, it couldn't compete with the other insurance companies who could now offer lower rates due to insuring healthier people. Any government founded co-op would run into the same issues.

The government option is not really an option at all imo. What they need to do is enforce interstate commerce laws and get rid of the legislation that each state has written that entrenches certain insurance companies in each state and limits competition. Prices would drop overnight once competition was brought into the system. Heck, require each company to cover a certain % of the currently uninsurable and it's a win win for all involved (except, alas the poor poor insurance companies).

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-09-15 16:30:15

#14

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5898|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

REFORM is good, as is the idea of covering everyone, that would be great, but they could do it by giving people a tax credit or something that they could use to purchase health insurance if they wanted to.
So what of folks like my mother? Just leave them for dead/anguish over something they had no control over? Barbaric. I'm hardly what folks would consider "socialist" or even "democrat" but really, that's too much for me.

There are only about 12 million "uninsurable" people in the US who are not illegal aliens, I think it would potentially be possible to have some form of coverage that would enable them to be covered. My point is that I'm sure we could come up with something that would work to cover them, while not destroying the coverage of the many people who are satisfied with their coverage. If we want everyone to get covered who already could, give them a tax break that would give them enough to get decent coverage on their own.

Edit: I think that maybe they should make it mandatory for insurance companies to enable people in a situation such as that to continue to be insured by them and purchase their own policy from that same company if they do it in a certain period of time.

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-09-16 16:53:14)

2009-09-15 18:03:30

#15

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Both sides agree that reform is needed. In fact, they agree on many of the same items of reform:

- mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions
- illegal to drop coverage when most needed
- universal availability

The differences revolve around implementation methodologies like mandatory coverage, tort reform, etc.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-15 18:22:17

#16

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6836|San Diego, CA, USA

Conservatives want:

Tort Reform - will lower Doctors' Malpractice insurance
Transferability of Health insurance across state lines
Move health care away from employers by allowing us to buy health insurance with pre-tax money
Control Illegal immigration so we don't have to spend on their health care
Give tax credits to health insurance companies who give health insurance to the poor or at a reduced rate
Help doctors' school loans with longer term, lower interest loans (they have like $150,000 right out of school)

Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. And notice no where in that list was socialize the entire system?

2009-09-15 19:02:20

#17

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

Harmor wrote:
Conservatives want:

Tort Reform - will lower Doctors' Malpractice insurance
Transferability of Health insurance across state lines
Move health care away from employers by allowing us to buy health insurance with pre-tax money
Control Illegal immigration so we don't have to spend on their health care
Give tax credits to health insurance companies who give health insurance to the poor or at a reduced rate
Help doctors' school loans with longer term, lower interest loans (they have like $150,000 right out of school)

Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. And notice no where in that list was socialize the entire system?

And coupled together they will all lower the cost. Imagine that.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-09-15 21:10:15

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6692|North Carolina

nickb64 wrote:
It is illogical to assume that insurance companies can cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. THey can cover some, but they cannot cover everyone for everything without it costing more.

A universal system could though... quite easily, in fact.

2009-09-15 21:24:25

#19

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

I think policing should be done on a user pays basis.

Been murdered? Why should I have to pay the cost of the investigation?
Its not like it will un-murder you anyway. Should have bought a gun dumbass.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-16 05:05:57

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
I think policing should be done on a user pays basis.

Been murdered? Why should I have to pay the cost of the investigation?
Its not like it will un-murder you anyway. Should have bought a gun dumbass.

Perhaps if your country's Constitution didn't have that as one of the powers of government, you could go for that type of program.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-16 05:45:53

#21

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Is that power or duty?
I seem to remember a case where it was determined the Police weren't actually required to do anything.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-16 05:51:49

#22

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7097|Nårvei

Actually Dilbert has got a point, why not use insurance companies to cover police investigations, no insurance - no investigation ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-09-16 05:58:49

#23

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7003

Varegg wrote:
Actually Dilbert has got a point, why not use insurance companies to cover police investigations, no insurance - no investigation ...

Jennifer government tbh.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-09-17 02:46:58

#24

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Is that power or duty?

Yes.

Dilbert_X wrote:
I seem to remember a case where it was determined the Police weren't actually required to do anything.

The way the powers/duties/rights are divvied up in our Constitution follows a basic rule: anything not explicitly given the federal government is inherently given to the States. Hence why we have State Police and not National Police.

Can't speak to a specific case like you describe. I'm sure the devil was in the details, not in the Constitutionality of whether the police force should exist to begin with.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-17 04:35:16

#25

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

The question is whether the police have a duty to investigate crime and prosecute offenders, forgetting whether police chiefs would get re-elected and so on.
I'm pretty sure they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pick and choose which crimes to follow up, which investigations to close etc.

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums Regardless of the public option, there NEEDS to be SOME health reform

nickb64 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Harmor wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer