It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why we push for healthcare reform

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


We don't have free market healthcare in this country.


We have a consumer driven healthcare system where 80% of americans fall under private insurance. If this type of system is failing then how on earth do you insist its going to change by making the market more free?

What will stop healthcare insurers like blueshield from cutting out people with pre-existing conditions and benefitting from it if they are given more market reign? Please let me know.

And for last 3 decades our market has gone through deregulation, from the Reagan administration through to the Bush administration. For you to argue this market has not gone free you would have dismiss the countless amounts of deregulation legislation that has gone through.


What we have is a fascist


Go talk to a holocaust survive and ask them if this healthcare reform bill passing is comparable to what these people had to go through. Im sure many will be insulted by the comparison.

Its easy for person who has not had to live under a real fascist government to freely throw the name around.


It does nothing to improve quality or reduce costs.


Quality of healthcare? We are not dicussing the quality of healthcare, you continue to ignore this fact. It is not quality of healthcare that is the problem here, it is access to healthcare and coverage and cost that is the porblem here. Healthcare insurance companies have been rising premiums for the last few decades, what the heck is more deregulation going to do to change that? You continue to dodge this question and instead insist reform won't do anything.


All it does is steal from the elderly to provide care for the poor.


What on earth are you talking about? Whos stealing from the elderly? Oh you mean medicare cuts? Are arguing that new socialist programmes will steal from medicare? You do know how contradictory this statement is first of all?


Its a joke, just like socialism is a joke.


The I suppose having the police is a joke? Like or not it is under a socialist system. Money is taken from us and distributed to the service of protection. I guess the military is a joke right? What about the fact that the founding fathers specifically added the post office as the responsibility of the federal government? You do know thats a socialist ideal right? What does it say to your arguement when the founding fathers added socialist functions to the constitution itself?

Do you know what I find as a joke? The idea of anarchism. Better yet I find it even more funny that there are differen types of anarchism. Anarchism is just that, no form of government involvement anywhere. I find it amazing how anarchist continue to make little acceptions in allowing legitimate government functions in their view of anarchism, but then insist they are 'anarchists'. This is exact would you have argued in previous threads. Do you even know where you stand anymore?


We don't have free market healthcare,


We do, anybody can buy private insurance. over 80% of the country is under private insurance. You continue to deny this fact. When the privatized system fails, just simple insist it wasnt privatized enough.


insurers are not allowed to sell cross state,


There is a bluecross that sells across most states. Cigna also crosses many states in America interms of coverage. Insurance companies have to merely register in states to sell. Most tend to expand their brandings to appeal toward different states. Here is an example of the house further allowing this to happen.

blogs.ajc.com...

There is little to nothing that has stopped insurance companies expanding.


massive regulatory overhead, etc.. etc..
'

Where? Before the financial crises when was there a massive regulatory piece of legislation passed?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

HB 1184 was approved 108-55 despite long and boisterous opposition from Democrats.


voices.washingtonpost.com...


The big Republican idea to bring down health-care costs is to "let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." Jon Chait has some commentary here, but I want to simplify a little bit.

Insurance is currently regulated by states. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning, and leaves lead poisoning coverage -- or its absence -- as a surprise for customers who find that they have lead poisoning. Here's a list (pdf) of which states mandate which treatments.

The result of this is that an Alabama plan can't be sold in, say, Oregon, because the Alabama plan doesn't conform to Oregon's regulations. A lot of liberals want that to change: It makes more sense, they say, for insurance to be regulated by the federal government. That way the product is standard across all the states.

Conservatives want the opposite: They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.



Of course, since this is the WaPo, the fascist in question throws a hissy fit claiming this is a "pro-insurance" move.

Its actually 100% the opposite.

Big healthcare providers HATE cross state insurance. Every major insurance lobby is against being allowed to sell healthcare across state lines.

It puts an enormous amount of competition on them.

Contrary to what this idiot is saying, you'll be hard pressed to find any major insurance agency that wants cross state insurance. Only the small time providers are in favor of it.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Let me tell you what else major insurance companies lobby for:

Mandatory coverage of certain illnesses.

Take the idiots example above of lead poisoning.

If Insurance was not regulated at all, I would be able to choose from a menu of coverage options.

Lets say I only want coverage for cancer and heart disease.

Such coverage would be wildly cheap.

HOWEVER - the great fascist state of CA says I'm too dumb to only buy cancer and heart coverage. I must buy a whole pile of shat I don't need like maternity care and drug counseling coverage - much to the joy of the insurance agencies in CA.

If I got lead poisoning, I would have to pay for my own treatment - BUT THAT'S MY CHOICE!

See how this works?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Why we push for health-care reform?

I have one answer for you:

Why not?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You mistake me. What I am saying is that what you are proposing, if in fact what you are proposing a federal health-management bureaucracy, would inevitably do more harm than good. You must understand that the "health care system" (as such) we have in this country is essentially this:

15.8 percent uninsured, according to the US Census Bureau

16 percent on Medicare

33 percent on Medicaid

19 percent on Private Insurance

Now, you tell me something. How is it that the 19% has the 49% bent over a barrel? How is it that the 19% dictates service and the 49% percent has no effect? In clearer terms, how can you blame what's wrong on the private sector when the public sector controls twice as much of the market?

I think you might not understand what I'm saying, or you might not believe it. Just enter the search string: "percent insured in the US" and watch what Google spits out on the first page.

I call it dis-info, and it's what the public's been fed this entire debate. I couldn't find a single result that would tell me how many people as a percent were covered by health insurance without a lot more digging than I should need to do here in Web 2.0. In fact, I was given results plainly contrary to what I was looking for.

Just be rational. Use your head, so that you can learn how to truly use your heart.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do you know why I am opposed to the cross state thing???



So the same thing does not happen that happened with the credit industry being parked in Delaware or South Dakota. Both states do have virtually nonexistent usury laws,
therefore creditors are allowed to charge out of state residents usury rates, by
by-passing the customers state of residence usury laws.

Considered criminal usury rates in all the other states, all possible by the same scheme

GO CORPORATION!!!

So of course the insurance companies will park themselves in states that will allow them to f#@k their customers over, based upon the laws in the state of charter.
Then all the states and their customers are beholden to, pro corporate insurance laws that will not fix the inherent problems in this system.

Talk about FASCIST???


"long live za corporation!!!"





a



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I must feeling opinionated tonight, and this story yanked it right out of me.

I know the expedience of partisan judgment is socially alluring; but I really don't care about this story in terms of politics.

Out there, in the world, there are people who apparently believe that policy is law. The fact that some assclown, if you'll pardon the term, actually rationalized the this condition was preexisting because it developed in the womb. (Incidentally, such a decision in my opinion tacitly endorses that a child in the womb is in fact, a person.)

Also, there are licensed medical professionals who would vacate their trust to do no harm, to a bureaucratic decision based on a piece of paper.

I wonder what has happened to our humanity, when we abandon the helpless - because of someone's idea of 'the rules.'

Yeah, the health care bill would have, could have, should have.... but the child is dead... deemed somehow to have been ineligible for compassion. And aside from the parents, everyone looked at their shoes and let it happen.

This is a good time to consider the notion of 'cost' versus the reality of 'value.'

Politics is fun.... but it's only a construct we create, and we make it real with our actions.

Health care bill or no, how can we be proud if we deny help to those who need, when it is within our power to help them? And I'm not talking about 'tax-payers,' I'm talking about the flesh and bone people who had the means and opportunity to tell the bureaucrat, "No, we don't allow people die because you can't profit from it."



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Health care bill or no, how can we be proud if we deny help to those who need, when it is within our power to help them? And I'm not talking about 'tax-payers,' I'm talking about the flesh and bone people who had the means and opportunity to tell the bureaucrat, "No, we don't allow people die because you can't profit from it."


we have to allow people to profit from it or else we devolve into slavery.

without doctors making a profit, no one would become a doctor.

the state would have to enslave people and force them at gun point to become doctors.

until we realize that healthcare is a good, like any other good, people must be allowed to profit from it.

there is no other way - other than slavery.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Health care bill or no, how can we be proud if we deny help to those who need, when it is within our power to help them? And I'm not talking about 'tax-payers,' I'm talking about the flesh and bone people who had the means and opportunity to tell the bureaucrat, "No, we don't allow people die because you can't profit from it."


we have to allow people to profit from it or else we devolve into slavery.

without doctors making a profit, no one would become a doctor.

the state would have to enslave people and force them at gun point to become doctors.

until we realize that healthcare is a good, like any other good, people must be allowed to profit from it.

there is no other way - other than slavery.




dude pull it out

My day jobs is medical billing

My doctor is lucky to take half off the money insurance bills the pool for each ICD9 we submit.

We are all happy to get rid of the middle man which is where much of the exorbitant cost dwell, but it has to fit into your ideological structure. The fixes you guys propose
are a kin to turning the current cluster $#@# to ten.

The damn HCR was an attempt to please you guys, thats the funny part. Instead of going socialisms, they bucked because they knew how you guys would react. Here we are, nothing is good enough and now neither of us are happy...

"must be, my, way, I am made of, marble..."

I am sure you are just as frustrated


[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
we have to allow people to profit from it or else we devolve into slavery.

without doctors making a profit, no one would become a doctor.


Nobody is asking the healthcare care proffessionals and corporations to stop making an earning out the industry. This is inevitable and necessary in many ways to keep doctors in the industry. That being said when people start treating sickness as that only of financial gain, we start disregarding human life and unfortunately this is what has exactly been happening in the industry. People are refused coverage and treatment costs are in the 1000's. Small businesses suffer, middle and working class folk suffer.

The issue isnt about whether the healthcare industry is in it in part for profit, the issue is about affordable access to those middle to lower income individuals and how this is being compromized for the sake of financial maximization. Its one thing to make an earning out of covering being for healthcare, it is another thing for maximizing financial gain at the expense of peoples lives and earnings. That is exactly whats happening.

You talk about how promoting more competition will put these corporations in place. While that may be agreeable you made another point without knowing it in that argument of yours. If corporations are working so tirelessly to prevent any further competition, that would mean they would have to be cooperating with each other at the greatest extent to benefit financially. By promoting more competition what makes you their cooperation through these practices will change? These companies will always seek financial maximization even at the expense of others in the form of rising premiums annually and refusing coverage, and increasing competition will not stop that practice from happening. If this issue is occuring across all states around the US that means allowing competition to more freely cross will not change their practices is cooperation at the expense of the health and financials of others.

Promoting more competition will not change a damn thing unless a public option is put into place. The private insurers have been cooperation with one another to cut off people and rise the costs of healthcare, allowing them to move more freely will not change this cooperation. Unless there is a public option in which this will really give the private insurers no choice but to stop cutting off people.


until we realize that healthcare is a good,


In this case then your argument would fall right back to baby Houston. A baby born with a defect, and if her parents are left out of insurance companies and with the cost of around $20,000 to pay, how do you expect this will help the economy and the middle to working classes? How do you expect it will effect on people paying their debt? In your eyes the minute a child is born, healthcare is a 'good' for purchase. Before that child even begins to walk, he or she is already having to pay and compete in this world. How is it freedom if you may verywell have debt the minute you are born with a disease or a defect? It is simply not right and if you were really pro-life you would agree with this fact.

What kind of world must you live in to force a newly born baby to cost the parents the second shes born? Better yet how the heck is this going to help the structure of the family in this country?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 






Yeah, the health care bill would have, could have, should have.... but the child is dead... deemed somehow to have been ineligible for compassion. And aside from the parents, everyone looked at their shoes and let it happen.



What child is dead? Are you referring to Houston Tracy? I just Googled that name looking for information and I can't find any news of this child's death, and still read stories of the successful heart surgery baby Houston underwent, so I am confused as to whom specifically you are referring to when you charge that there are medical practitioners who deny life giving care because an insurance policy dictates it. This does not at all seem to be the case with the Houston Tracy story.

If there is some breaking news of the child's death and how that death was ensured by the willful denial of necessary health care by medical practitioners, could you provide a link to that story?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
free markets provide better, cheaper, and more accesable care to a wider portion of the population than socialist nonsense.

"Free" care is impossible.

Costs must be contained by price controls in a socialist system.

Price controls DEMAND RATIONING.

You can not have price controlled medical care without rationing. It is an economic impossibility.

Never in the known history of man has something been placed under price controls AND been unlimited in its accessibility besides infinitely reproducible goods such as electronic media.




[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]


If you go to France and Spain you would realise how the "Socialists" are doing better healthcare care than the Brits.

The whole notion of prioce controls is certainly not restricted to socialism. In fact capitalism is associated with tighter fiscal control on a unit cost basis.

I do not know where you see socialist countries all western countries are actually socially democratic which is why Trotsky used the phrase "social fascists" in his selected writings. I however I am not sure how this directly relates to health care in the USA . All that I do know is that good people are crying out for a decent healthcare system. As a parent I feel strongly about sicknesses in a family. Before you start arguing with me kiss your kids and appreciate their health. Then think strongly about how you would feel if they were sick. It can be a harrowing experience. I mean you know harm but please be aware something is broken in the US health care.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Tiger5]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


What kind of world must you live in to force a newly born baby to cost the parents the second shes born? Better yet how the heck is this going to help the structure of the family in this country?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]


What kind of world must you live in to force someone to become a doctor?

What kind of world must you live in to force a doctor to provide service for free?

or

What kind of world must you live in to force someone to pay a doctors salary at the point of a gun?

What kind of world must you live in to force someone to pad the bottom line of an insurance company at the point of a gun?

What kind of world must you live in where force against the innocent is the primary means of industry profits?

What kind of world must you live in where rationed care is the norm because bureaucracy provides inefficient and low quality care?

Sure, its horrible. - no one disputes that.

However slavery and violence are just as abhorrent.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Every single company has different protocol -
So the doctor has to pay me to navigate the endless variations
It is wasteful for her
Some companies have such stringent entry into the backside (provider) phone system
that I have to go thru 20 minute of prompts only to find out that I have to submit in writing.
You talk about feeling sorry for doctors, I must spend 25% of my time (and docs money)
trying to squeeze pithily amounts of money, $14.00 here, $8.50 there.

And I'll tell you what, some of the companies do it on purpose


They do it because they know they can save money by frustrating people enough by giving up on collecting such small sums.

so they save and bill the pool anyways


CROOKS

You want to know the BEST part of the system MEM???

the government standardized 1500 forms, ICD9 codes

That is the only consistent, optimized thing in the whole damn system ironically enough.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Things are only that way because of government intervention in the markets.

In a free market, no one would do business with such a company.

Insurance would be super-streamlined.

Things would move like clockwork.

As I already pointed out, things are only that way because of the massive regulation involved.

Competition would weed out the crap companies that are inefficient and provide horrible service.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
You guys do know that insurance companies make money off investments, not premiums, right? The premiums are just there to insure a rough 65/35 premiums-to-payout split so they can effectively operate their investment dealings. And since the insurance business model offers pretty slim profit margins (in the 3-4 percent range), and since government (which remember, RUNS 49% OF THE SYSTEM) keeps inflating prices both through the costs of bureaucracy and the administration of massive tort awards, the insurance industry (19%) can't help but raise the prices.

That's reality. Why not reform Medicare and Medicaid BEFORE overhauling the whole health-care system? You know, those two programs that are at least half the problem? I think it might have something to do with taking over the world, evil-genius super villain style, but what do I know? You be the own judge.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This thread desperately wants to be a long drawn out advertisement for the insurance industry, ironically from those who claim to have serious problems with the insurance industry. The advocates of this horrid legislation clearly revile the insurance industry, and free market principles, but expect the insurance industry to foot the bill for their medical costs anyway.

As to the clear and obvious problems that exist in the health care field they offer no viable answers, not even solutions, other than mandating insurance coverage on health. Rather than advocating a government more active in zealously defending the rights of an individual from abrogation and derogation, and if an insurance company is guilty of any breach of contract, then those harmed by that breach have a right to rely upon the courts for a redress of grievances, they instead advocate a legislative bill that does nothing more than empower the very industry they claim to revile.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This thread desperately wants to be a long drawn out advertisement for the insurance industry, ironically from those who claim to have serious problems with the insurance industry. The advocates of this horrid legislation clearly revile the insurance industry, and free market principles, but expect the insurance industry to foot the bill for their medical costs anyway.

As to the clear and obvious problems that exist in the health care field they offer no viable answers, not even solutions, other than mandating insurance coverage on health. Rather than advocating a government more active in zealously defending the rights of an individual from abrogation and derogation, and if an insurance company is guilty of any breach of contract, then those harmed by that breach have a right to rely upon the courts for a redress of grievances, they instead advocate a legislative bill that does nothing more than empower the very industry they claim to revile.




I offered one JPZ

Make a universal system which would offer basic coverage. Each individual could chose to opt in or not. People could then augment the basic coverage with private supplemental insurance, CASH doctor visits or nothing beyond the basic coverage.
No mandates and everyone opted out can chose to buy private insurance, or no insurance at all. Malpractice could even be pooled in with the insured which would save practitioners.

This was on the table, but the bozos (IMO) backed down and gave us this frankenstein
concept.

If we are talking a solution, which is delivery, this would work for some people, without infringing upon others.

ITs amazing that we all see each others solutions as being pro industry isn't it?



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Your attempts at special pleading, and arguing that everyone should have health insurance because you believe the cost of your health care will become insurmountable, and bad things will happen if we don't all just play along and buy insurance, while our legislatures continue to tinker with their legislation, (and quite probably much of the tinkering is due to the emotional nature of the crafting of the Bill), is just more fallacy. Why is the cost of health care becoming so insurmountable? This is the issue, and to a lesser extent, why is it you believe you will need to pay for this insurmountable health care?


This brings another thought to mind. The first law of supply and demand: As demand rises, price increases. So, if the medical "market" is, suddenly, flooded with new, "insured customers", will not the cost of the "service", increase? And, with those increases would come increases in co-insurance amounts. So again, those in the middle class will suffer from increased "out-of-pocket" health care expenses, because they are more likely to affordable health insurance with higher deductibles, higher co-pays and higher co-insurance amounts.

To the OP

From what I understand, the child received the proper care for his condition, even though he was not covered by an insurance policy. Yet, there is still a demonizing of the insurance company. I must pose this question. If the procedure had not been performed, due to the lack of insurance coverage, would the blame still be directed to the insurance company? My guess is the answer is, yes, based on the majority of the rhetoric of the past year or so. Further evidence of this is the so-called "health care reform" bill, which does little to address health care.

While I agree the story of Houston Tracy is a sad one, it ends well, with the health care system working, even though the health insurance system failed, miserably.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by WTFover]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by WTFover]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I don't think you quite understand the mindset behind the majority of us who oppose the health care takeover...

The system is messed up, and it needs fixed, but the solution isn't handing it over to the government. If we had a government that we could trust to do the right thing, sure. The politicians are just as much if not more about the money and power as the corporations are.

If people would stop suing doctors over everything, their insurance would go down and therefor their costs would go down and therefor it would be cheaper for everyone else. Blame the bum out there trying to get the easy buck. Too many people are looking for a handout and are too lazy to work for anything. That is why our system is falling apart.

This overhaul on healthcare is unconstitutional, another reason we oppose it. It's also filled with so much crap (just like any rotten piece of legislature to come out of our corrupt leadership) that hardly anyone even knows everything that's in it. Some stuff doesnt even have to do with health care.

What's more, they did it when the majority of the population was against it. That is definition taxation without representation. Do we have any say at all in what our government does? Bush went to war, and even though he had support, he said we were going to war whether we liked it or not. Obama pushed this through knowing we didnt want it, and pretty much said that we just have to deal with it.

That's all for my rant, the system is bad, but this is NOT how to fix it. The traitors in Washington need to get ready for a revolution if they keep this crap up. I dont think Obama realizes that most of the guys in the military dont even like him, much less actually consider him their commander in chief or leader.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join