yeah. i think i’m going to let it go - and let her go on being able to have a decent life thanks to the SSDI taxes everyone pays for her upkeep.
Snort. Do people fit nicely into little slots in your world? They don’t in mine. So you can just forget trying to fit me into the “conservative” slot.
As for your first question, the fact is that you who support taxing us to give healthcare to all were the first to show a lack of consideration. As is illustrated by what you say below, for some reason you think that the taxpayer has an unlimited supply of money to pay for everything you want to give away. Does it occur to you that one major reason why some folks cannot afford private insurance is because they are paying so much tax?
I did not lose any election, and there is a limit to how much money the average citizen can make, not matter how fast they run in that wheel. You obviously have extremely unrealistic ideas of the economic realities of being a responsible adult, and unfortunately, you are far from alone.
No, but apparently they are more available here than in Canada, plus even if a kidney became available, apparently they are having trouble getting the attention of someone to do the surgery.
Yet, when companies hire someone with pre-existing conditions and put them on their insurance policy, somehow those insurance companies are not losing money. Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that those insurance companies have decades of experience figuring out how to cover those folks that cost more than the premiums they pay, could it?
Uh, that is hardly it. For one thing, it isn’t any medical diagnosis - a cold you had six months prior to coverage doesn’t mean you won’t be covered for any cold you have later. Also, you had to have actually sought diagnosis and/or treatment and it had to have been within whatever time frame set in policy.
For example, way back when I first got insurance, I had had asthma for well over ten years at that point, as well as seasonal allergies. But since I hadn’t had any treatment for either in those well over ten years (other than OTC drugs), neither were considered a pre-existing condition.
It’s not a dodge, it is a reminder that whatever I say, you just stamp your feet and demand that the haves pay for the have nots. Things you have ignored/brushed off - extending the federal pre-exist laws to private insurance; or having someone in charge looking into the anti-trust issues; or extending Medicaid to cover those with pre-ex who cannot get coverage thru their employer; or allowing small businesses to get together to pool their employees so they qualify for group coverage, etc etc.
I didn’t say a thing about unemployment insurance payments, I specifically said government aid.
How about welfare, ADC and all the rest? The point here is, people who get government aid don’t pay income tax on it, but I pay income tax on my SSDI. Do you see the difference?
No, you said bankrupt, not destitute, which are not the same thing - you know that, right? I also pointed out that in California at least, you can have enough “extra” money to have a non-MediCal policy as well as MediCal so that is hardly destitute. You glommed onto the fact that I said it was hard to get MediCal in this state if you don’t have children, even tho that had almost nothing to do with the subject, which tends to appear that you are avoiding that subject.
Yeah, those “facts” that thousands of folks like me have examined and rejected, but gosh according to you I’m the only one to think a UHC is a bad idea. Huh
they may, actually - which is why the next time the contract is up for renewal, they will raise the premium rates to make up for this. with large groups, it’s possible to spread the cost of a sickly employee out - not so with a small business of 10 people. one person that develops cancer will cost serious money in premium increases to a group of 10, not so much for a group of 1000.
as you mention below, alllowing small business to consolidate their pools may be a solution. but then again…
then, because extremely large companies are able to absorb the costs effectively 20% increases may be tolerable to a corporation that just had 5% growth on a few billion in sales, but it may not be tolerable to a small business operating in a local economy on razor-thin margins.
finally, large businesses also have some degree of market power in purchasing insurance, this will more effectively spread out the costs of the really sick employees to all three parties (insurer who has to eat some losses to keep business, employers who will have a decreased profit margin, employees who will pay more for their insurance).
these economies especially don’t function when you have individual policies.
but i would like to hear your response to my point about how making non-employer-based health insurance available to those with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t cause massive losses for the health insurance company, as there would be, predictably, massive bandwagoning of insured customers only when they get sick.
well, no, because the separate cold you had later wasn’t preexisting. this is obvious, and i didn’t think that i needed to elaborate on that because it’s contained in the word “preexisting” itself. but if you had a disease 6 months prior to coverage, it relapsed for a while, and then came back, it would very much be a preexisting condition.
and no, you don’t actually had to have actually sought diagnosis and/or treatment. there is no way you would claim this if you were involved in the health insurance industry.
you asked me to define a preexisting condition, you didn’t ask me to define a preexisting condition as Insurance Company X defines it under State Y’s regulations, so your requirement of a time limit is erroneous. The time limit isn’t the focus of what is or isn’t a preexisting condition.
so here are your things, and here are my actual responses. i’ll let the viewing public decide if they’re brush offs
extend pre-exist laws: if you can do it, legally, then sure, i’ll be for it. in fact, i have said that this needs to get fixed. but there is a problem: unless you can provide for the same premiums for someone with pre-exist or not (which is worse to an insurer) then insurers will simply make pre-existing coverage unaffordable. which is the same thing as changing nothing. but then again, if you provide for premium parity, then everyone under that policy is effecively… paying for… the healthcare insurance of those with pre-existing coverage.
anti-trust: you haven’t brought it up at all in my conversations with you. but, to show you my good faith attempt to respond to your suggestions, here it is: reputable studies continually demonstrate that health care markets (i.e. the markets in each state) have been effectively concentrated into 2-3 providers per state. this isn’t going to change with a modification to the anti-trust provisions. what it will probably do, however, is allow these already-existing companies to relocate into a jurisdiction that will offer them extremely minimial insurance regulation standards, and they will then continue to operate in their monopoly markets - but with far less regulation than before.
extending medicaid: assuming you mean (graciously) allowing medicaid to cover the uninsurable at whatever income level, you have just basically condemned this program into a real clusterfuck of expense. it will expand government run welfare programs exponentially - as now insurers will most assuredly NOT cover pre-existing people as they can be offloaded to medicaid - which would result in a cherry-picking of the best and healthiest consumers by insurance companies. so health insurance for the sick is paid for by the taxpayers, and health insurance profits from the healthy are picked up by the insurance company. sounds just great to me.
small-business pools: again, this is the first you’ve ever mentioned this to me. i don’t have a problem with it.
maybe you can tell by now, but there is a big, big tension inherent in a private health insurance market serving as a country’s national healthcare system: what the fuck do you do with people that don’t work. your solution is to dump them off on medicaid, or to force insurers to cover them at a loss. how either of these solutions don’t implicate the big bad wolf of government is beyond me. so i don’t know why you would endorse them, frankly.
unemployment insurance payments are government aid.
unemployment insurance is a type of welfare. as i answered. i don’t know what your point is, actually - that because you pay taxes on SSDI while someone doesn’t pay taxes on food stams, one is magically not a government welfare/assistance program, while one is not? because that’s not it.
No, you said bankrupt, not destitute, which are not the same thing - you know that, right? I also pointed out that in California at least, you can have enough “extra” money to have a non-MediCal policy as well as MediCal so that is hardly destitute. You glommed onto the fact that I said it was hard to get MediCal in this state if you don’t have children, even tho that had almost nothing to do with the subject, which tends to appear that you are avoiding that subject.
you should look up the thesaurus for a synonym for “bankrupt” and “destitute” - you’ll notice some parallels.
but here is what HHS, the people that run Medicaid, have to say:
do you get it now? you have to be destitute/basically bankrupt (note i did not say bankrupt, i said basically bankrupt)/lacking in assets/broke/poor, whatever the hell word you want to use, in order to qualify for medicaid
There is no evidence of this. As usual, curlcoat simply fabricates “facts” to support her case.
An interesting piece about the costs of health care reform
(reg required)
I haven’t read the thread just a few posts on cost and the CBO’s forecast. Here’s what the Economist has to say about it:
Well, that’s an opinion, but I see no reason to grant it any credence. You didn’t link to the op-ed piece, but I am guessing he didn’t give any examples of projections the CBO published that have been disproven, right?
The quote is from: Passing the baton
Just to be clear, it is the Public Option which polls well with Americans, and which causes poo-poo head pubbies to change the subject to free helicopters for all, or kidneys on demand or something. From page 4 of this article:
Though probably Nobody’s listening hehe.
Talking about expanding choices, I’ve heard that the Democrats voted against the Republican plan which would allow people to purchase insurance across state lines. Seems to me that if the Democrats want to extend choice then they should include that provision in their plan.
Which is why I suggested that these small businesses be allowed to get together and buy a large group policy. It doesn’t seem that the group needs to be all that big either since my husband works for a company that employs maybe 200 people and our group policy isn’t all that expensive. Plus we had the option of saving money and going with Kaiser.
I already addressed and you have apparently ignored the small impact this “bandwagoning” of yours would have. Anyway, the only change would be that the insurance companies would be required to write policies for those with pre-existing conditions, not that they have to lose money doing it. There are many different ways that such a policy can be written - to exclude the pre-existing condition and cover everything else; to put a cap on expenses for pre-ex; to agree to only cover certain drugs/procedures, etc.
Then, how does the insurance company know that you have this pre-existing condition if you haven’t been diagnosed and/or treated??
I said define a pre-existing condition as it is defined by the insurance industry. There are federal laws that govern this, and the states cannot have any laws that nullify any federal laws. I’m beginning to think that your information on insurance is quite dated, at least from prior to HIPAA, Title I which was in the mid 90’s.
It has already been done in group policies, about ten years ago. Do you think it would be a big jump to require the same for individual policies?
If it is a large group and the cost can be spread around, as is already done with large group policies, then there probably wouldn’t be much if any difference in the cost of the premium. OTOH, if someone with a pre-existing condition wants to go get an individual policy after having had no insurance prior, then they are just looking for someone else to pay their way after being irresponsible, and as far as I’m concerned they should be SOL. Of course, it depends on what the pre-ex is - something like asthma isn’t going to cost that much to treat, but a 30 year old with cancer and no prior insurance is a completely different matter.
I was speaking of the federal anti-trust laws, which could be used to address these companies, like United Healthcare, that are buying up scores of little insurance companies and cornering the market in many areas.
In other words, you don’t like the same idea as what is being proposed (last I looked) in Congress - to have a government health insurance plan that people who cannot get insurance for whatever reason can sign up for. The only (major) difference in my idea is that those with a decent income will end up paying a much higher premium than the average Medicaid insured. Also, if the idea of extending Medicaid was adopted, I would also not repeal HIPAA, Title I so employer provided insurance would not be able to “offload” pre-existing conditions to the government.
Your solution is to require those who do/did work and who have been responsible with their incomes to pay to cover those people who claim they cannot afford to pay for insurance. How is that not socialism?
It isn’t in California, it is insurance. Are their states that don’t take money out of your check to pay into unemployment insurance?
Actually, it is. The government considers insurance payments (disability, unemployment, etc) and SSDI as income, not aid because the person receiving those payments paid into those funds specifically as a hedge against the future. And if you didn’t pay into them, you don’t get anything back, unlike food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing and all of that, which you get just by qualifying by whatever rules they have. There are hundreds of thousands of people living on welfare who have never paid into the system - no one gets unemployment payments (at least, in CA) without having paid into it, and all of the folks living on SS or SSDI paid into that, or are a relative of someone who paid in and died early.
There are some parallels but in real life they are not much alike. You should look up bankruptcies and note all the things that people can hold onto - they are generally far from destitute.
What does that have to do with the idea of extending Medicaid to those with pre-existing conditions who cannot get insurance?
See your post on 11-14-2009 10:55 PM.
Why does a health insurance company have to make a profit on each and every group that joins together to negotiate a policy? I’m sure my car insurance doesn’t. I’ve never even needed to file a claim; they’ve made a fortune on me over the years. And the luck of the draw says that there’s some other customer, somewhere, who’s gotten back more than he paid in. But if the insurance company gets their statistics and projections correct, all the customers taken together generate a profit.
Why doesn’t health insurance operate the same way, spread the risks over the entire customer base instead of quibling over the details of each group? The only thing I can figure is that they’d love to sell only to healthy people, and disallow anyone who looks likely to collect, and it’s only in groups that we combine our purchasing power and have enough leverage to force them into something they don’t want to do.
For the record, I did not post at 10:55 PM on 11-14-2009. More transparent misdirection by curlcoat.
Well, you ask your initial question about groups, then bring up an individual (yourself) to prove it wrong.
The answer of course, is that only in the aggregate do they need to make a profit. Their profit margins are not nearly would you might believe however - go find my post in this thread from about a week ago, where I ran down the numbers for the top 5 insurance companies. They averaged about 4% profit - not exactly the evil warlords making obscene profits at the expense of the serfs, as some would have you believe.
What does that have to do with the question I asked?
Can I (vainly, foolishly) attempt to clear up something for everyone?
Socialistic != Socialism
There, that wasn’t so hard, no? There are plenty of socialistic aspects to our current government system- it is hard to avoid. And people want and like them up to a point. They even vote for them.
Here’s another one:
Socialistic != bad
Again, pretty easy, no? Let’s just retire that silly line of argument and save ourselves some time.
Why, yes - if you live in Canada and you need a kidney you may need to wait a while…you MIGHT not get one, and MIGHT die young because of it. And that would be bad.
Then again if you live in America and you need a kidney and don’t have health insurance, you PROBABLY won’t get that pain checked out because you can’t afford an office visit, and if you do you PROBABLY won’t pay out of pocket for the thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of tests and treatments you need, and if you DO somehow manage that - I’m not sure how, but whatever - you still MIGHT not get your kidney and if you DO, you will probably have to declare bankrupcy which will cost THE TAXPAYERS all of your bills, plus you still can’t afford coverage for the lifetime of follow-up your new kidney will require.
Oh yeah. Gee, Canada sounds like a real shit-hole.
Also? Fuck anyone who thinks my scenario is REMOTELY unusual.
Well, sure. But you’re forgetting the number of people on the SDMB who spend a good chunk of their time jerking off to “The Fountainhead”.
Anyone who didn’t foresee their possible health problems (and resulting need for insurance) deserves to die.
Duh.
-Joe
i think you’re on to something…