It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Are HC Opponents Informed or Misinformed?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by ChemBreather

I haven't. I respect my time more than that.

My objections are less about the content of the bill, and more about the fact that the mindset about what to do is based on faulty logic.

It isn't about the insurance companies. It is about the doctors and Medicare. Those are the two broken legs on this three legged stool.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I'll address your issues with the bill...not my thread but I thought I would try to reply to everyones issues. Was just to tired last night to keep going and got caught up in some other discussions. So here we go.

- I see how the VA system and Medicare are run. The Medicare system is the single largest denier of health claims in the US. I don't expect that we will see the US Gov do a better job of managing MY health. I will get back to Medicare in a minute.

Nothing in the health care bill would make health care like the VA or Medicare. There is no government run facilities and there is no medicare buy in or government sponsored public option. The US Gov will not manage your health care...none of this applies to the current HCB that passed.

But even if it did...why don't you tell all the people that go to the VA or are on medicare that since those systems aren't perfect...that you are taking them away. See what response you get from that. Those people need that care...and while it isn't is all they can afford or get.

- It doesn't address the greed of the doctors inflating health care prices. 10 years ago a General Practitioner got about 60 bucks a visit. Now it is between 160 and 200. That is enormous. In response to the increase in these costs (not to mention exhorbitant new procedures and equipment that drive cost), my insurance rates have increased, as well as my share of what i pay. How does the HC bill address this issue?

It actually tries to in an indirect way. Do you think these numbers just went up for no reason? Rising costs are partially driven by two factors (which are the same really)...the uninsured and insurance companies denying claims. These both do the same creates a situation where a doctor performs services and then doesn't get paid (or paid in full) for his services. So if I'm a doctor 10 years ago like in your example and I know I will get $60 for a visit...well today when I know more than half of my visits will either not pay, or pay less than I charged....I'm going to charge a higher rate so I'm still getting on average of $60 a visit.

Your insurance rates increasing are because of this...and that the insurance companies are flat out greedy.

So the HCB will indirectly effect this by having everyone insured (no uninsured not paying bills anymore) and by eliminating pre-existing conditions (no denied claims). You may think this will increase rates because insurance companies will have to pay out more...but they are also getting more customers...larger pool...lower risks...more money in the pool to pay out with. So in should all balance out.

- Doctors are not the only blame. There are lawyers, too. The tort system needs to have caps and limits applied. Humans make mistakes. Some level of understanding needs to be applied. Rare mistakes by doctors must be tolerated, and we must all understand that there are risks associated with health care. The alternative is dying...that is a risk too. The system should assess steps taken to mitigate risk before deciding on the level of responsibility for mistakes.

I agree...frivolous lawsuits should be eliminated...I just don't know how to do that. But capping claims at 250k isn't the solution. There were no good solutions put on the table in the debate for this HCB. Do you think a 250k cap is justifiable? Some "mistakes" could cost 4 times that in additional healthcare costs.

- Insurance is an investment. You pay into a system that you can draw on for your health expenses when needed. If you are able to get insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, that allows people to only sign up for insurance when their health fails (like car insurance...they get it only when they have to pass inspection, get a license, or registration). This will drive costs up further, as it must be offset. Either costs will go up, or benefits will degrade. There MUST be a catch in the system to keep people from getting insurance only when they are sick.

It is a larger insured pool. And a lot of these additional insured will be young healthy people...who will pay in now...and not costs so much to the insurance until later. So this is why the mandate is a must...there is no other logical way to do it. Well there is...and it is the public option which people lost their minds over from fear mongering. And this shouldn't drive up health care "should" lower them by eliminating denied claims.

And I disagree that insurance is an I have changed policies and companies many many times...I never got to "cash out" on what I paid in. You don't "pay in" to cover your future medical pay in to cover others current medical costs. And in the future when you are sick...others are paying in to cover your costs. That is how it's not like an investment where you are building up your own little stockpile.

- the government should not mandate that i purchase something, and then tax it. That sounds like something some crazy 13th century European King would try. I mean, right now i get a tax break for insurance premiums...under the "new and improved" system instead of a break i get a bill? WTH?

Do you have proof of this...I've never heard this argument it is hard to address it. Can you show me the section in the bill that now taxes previously tax exempt health care costs???

- all of the above is nothing compared to this: this is going to be like sand in the gears of the American business machine. I manage a nice, 4 star hotel. Having to provide insurance to housekeepers who work 5-6 hours a day is going to drive my rates up by about 40%. Now, apply that same type of scenario across all industries. ATT just announced that 1bil offset they are going to have to find. Your grandma at the nursing home? How will you pay for the premiums of all the staff there? Every single service sector business will be impacted severely. Prepare to pay 7 bucks for a Big Mac. Welcome back 1978.

Well good thing you won't have to provide coverage for part time employees then
That just simply isn't in the only have to provide health care coverage for full time employees. And since your hotel probably has more than 50 full time employees...then using the part timers to count for the 50FTE limit shouldn't matter to you either.

And's hard to cry for someone who has been gaming the system to avoid taxes. And do you know what they are complaining about??? They get TAX FREE subsidies from the government...and then also through a loophole they get to DEDUCT that money from their total taxes. This bill just fixes the now they can't game the system by deducting from their taxes FREE MONEY from the government. Now you think they should be able to do this??? Do you think ATT and other large companies should be able to avoid paying taxes because they can deduct free money from the gov? American public has to pay taxes on SS benefits and they can't deduct that money at tax time...why should large companies??? Do you honestly think this was a good you honestly think they shouldn't of closed that loophole???

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by damwel
Do you even know what socialism is?

Good golly, if I hear someone say that one more time I'm going to blow a cork, ha.

Whenever I hear that this is my response: I don't care what socialism is or isn't! I'll have no part of it, regardless of what it is or isn't. Socialism could be everyone getting a million dollar check in the mail tomorrow and still wouldn't want any part of that .. because that still wouldn't be my million dollars to spend.

I may not be a religious fellow, I may be an agnostic because I simply do not know, but that does not mean I am without any moral principles. Theft is theft any way you slice it. There may or may not be a god, but I ain't taking any chances either way .. certainly involuntary servitude is a sin worthy of a sentence to hell. There's a big difference between socialism and charity, a BIG moral difference.

So, I don't give a hoot what socialism is .. we already have enough of it, and we don't need any more. There comes a time when you have to put your foot down, and now is that time. LEAVE ME ALONE .. OR ELSE!!!

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Outstanding responses. I do want to address them in depth, but it is a busy day down at the Hotel .

Shortly....i employ people from a moral standpoint. If there are hours to be worked or a job to be done, i use anyone who isn't at 40 hours first.

But FTE calculations do not apply to insurance (although they are wonderful for employee workload and ratios). An employee working 30 hours a week is a full time employee (even though they are only .75 FTE).

If i were still running a call center, this would mean that my "flex" employees (those that work between 30 and 40 hours per week, based on business need) would be flexed down to no more than 29 hours. Since my handleminute rate is set in stone from the contract with my client, I would not be able to recover revenue spent. The only way to make it through to contract renegotiation would be to cut all employees to 20-29 hours per week.

Hard to feed a family on that.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I always find the people who support the bill have no idea what is in it. They immediately start asking why I'm against health care and helping the poor. Apparently THEY have no idea what's actually in the bill.

those who oppose it have no idea either.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

" Really? So buying health insurance is unconstitutional. "

No , buying Health Care Insurance should be a Choice Americans freely make concerning their bodies . This Issue is as simple as that . Where is the Choice in this HCB ? There is None......

Hm, interesting.
Every person I know who doesn't have insurance BEGS for it. Maybe I'm just surrounded by crazies who want insurance. Perhaps.

I want to meet someone who Doesn't want it, I'll shake their hand and give them props.

I've been studying this heavily as I own a business. I was going to post some things for you to consider until I started reading your responses to people. You are just looking to beat up on people and are lying about your intent IMO. This is just another Koss style bunch of tripe. You don't want an honest discussion, so why lie and pretend you do.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM

I want to meet someone who Doesn't want it, I'll shake their hand and give them props.

I wouldn't mind having affordable health care insurance, but could I PLEEEEASE be put into the pool with others like me, those that care about their health, those that aren't fat, those that don't drink alcohol like a fish (actually I don't drink at all), those that don't like getting STDs on their thingies, those that exercise regularly, etc.?

Please, do not put me into that insurance pool with all those that don't care about their health. I wouldn't have auto insurance if you put me in the same pool along with all the drunks and accident prone and speed demons out there on the roads. You can't force me to pay for their crap!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Divinorumus]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Thanks for the personal attacks. I'm actually curious to find some valid and accurate points or facts about the HC bill. All I'm seeing are opinions and stuff folks get from biased sources.

I'm not beating up on anyone, just looking for some answers

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

I've been studying this heavily as I own a business. I was going to post some things for you to consider until I started reading your responses to people. You are just looking to beat up on people and are lying about your intent IMO. This is just another Koss style bunch of tripe. You don't want an honest discussion, so why lie and pretend you do.

You should still share what you found...I'd be interested in it.

I've been trying to respond in a fair way...not saying everything I am posting is undeniable truth...because as with both sides of this debate...a lot is researched opinion based on interpretation...and only some of it is cold hard fact.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I look forward to your replies...I love being able to have an honest debate about this issue. It is an important issue and it should debated. And when it is done correctly both sides can and should learn something new.

As far as the FTE counting...I think this only applies to the HCB in regards to see if a small business is required to provide insurance. I think but not positive (I'd have to look it up and don't have time right now) that if you have more than 50 employees then you have to provide insurance. And I think for that counting...they do count part timers if you have 5 FTE and 100 part time employees at 50%...then I think you would be required to provide insurance for your 5 FTE. I'm not sure I agree with that counting method...but it is a part of the bill I really haven't gone into in great detail.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:53 PM
I'll share something I came across.

Anybody concerned about the tax provisions in this bill may be interested to look over this.

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code.68 The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

Page 33

[edit on 2-4-2010 by jam321]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:13 PM
When it come to the health care bill this is what I believe that many are objecting to:
It is not up to the federal government to mandate the purchase of anything. They are there to regulate commerce between the states. If this was not about control, then why did they give the enforcing arm of this bill to the IRS? And based off of what I have read and understand, you may have health care now, but if it does not meet the standards as set out by the federal government, you will get fined. And failure to pay those fines means you get slapped with a higher fine and jail time. Oh it may not say it now, but if you consider how the IRS operates, it is just a matter of time.
If they were wanting to allow for the costs of health insurance down, why did they not remove the protection clauses in the bill?
Why is the fact that written in the bill is that the federal government will create a military core of doctors? Or why was the student loads taken away from the private sector and now under the mandate of the Federal government? Or how about this, if this is so good, why are members of the federal government, members of congress and the executive branch, immune from this bill? Why are they not taking this? How is making children dependent on their parents till they are 26 a good thing? And why are the largest of the top 10 companies going to be taking a hit against their bottom line, going from the millions to billions of dollars?
If this was going to be deficit neutral, then how do you spend to gain? And why does medicare take a massive cut that will cause doctors who are servicing such patients are now having to turn them away? And why are we paying for something that we will see no bennifit from for 4 years, so it will help no one at this present time.
If I do not drive, I am not required to have auto insurance, and I have a choice as to where I live, hence I control to a certain degree how much in rent I pay. If I want to eat out, that too is my choice. I think that this takes away too much from the public. This is not a good bill, as it causes more problems than the solutions that it creates.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in