That more people getting treated might lead to fewer people getting treated?
Cut the crap.
Is that crap? Increased wait times result in fewer people being treated in a timely fashion. Sometimes things can’t wait. What good is universal care without universal access. Take the fucking blinders off for five minutes!
The First Law of Holes, friend.
Bravo! Another ingenious remark! As usual you have nothing to add to the debate other than smart-ass remarks :rolleyes:
WHOOOOOOOOOSSHHHHHH!!!
Let’s try this again: "I personally follow the tenets of my religion. I donate both time and money to charitable causes. My religion commands me to feed the hungry. It does nto command me to make others feed the hungry.
Does the relevance of the Council of Bishops’ calling for universal health care sink in when considering your intimation that the “tenets of your religion” don’t require health care for all people? Now, if you want to come out and say that you disagree with the Council of Bishops on “the tenets of your religion” regarding health care, by all means, have at it. But don’t pretend to talk for the Catholic religion.
And I accept your offer. I expect you to fully support UHC, since I already supporting outlawing abortion. Sorry your big, liberal painting brush missed me.
Replace the phrase “individual self-interest” with “immediate self-interest.” Where is your spirit now?
The least expensive plan in the state pool (the high deductible-HSA plan) is something like 30% of her monthly income. According to this article, the state plan has only 3,700 people in it, due to its above-market premiums. And none of the agents or brokers we’ve worked with has ever mentioned anything about a family pool.
Understandably very expensive. I don’t know if your family is in a position to pass the hat around to help defray the costs for her but it would be worth it if possible. Better to have a policy just in case.
I don’t understand why you think anyone’s calling for the US to follow Christian ideology. It’s about you supporting effective health insurance policy because it’s the Christian thing to do, and apparently that’s official. Where do you get the idea anyone’s arguing for basing policy on Christian teachings? That the hypothetical policy under discussion happens to align with Christian beliefs is unimportant to me; it’s a happy coincidence. What Christians are supposed to want didn’t enter my head.
How many currently uninsured people will be able to get insurance if there’s tort reform?
How many currently uninsured people will be able to get insurance if it’s purchasable across state lines?
How many currently uninsured people will be able to get insurance if there’s a catastrophic illness pool?
Purchasing across state lines may increase the numbers of insured people but there’s only one problem. I’m in Pittsburgh. My doctor is in Pittsburgh. The hospital where there’s a nice record of my prior care is in Pittsburgh. So maybe the law changes and I can buy a really great policy from a company based in South Dakota. But where is the guarantee (and what’s the incentive) that my Pittsburgh-based healthcare providers will accept this coverage? A policy from somewhere else doesn’t help me much if no one where I am wants to deal with it.
The treatment I currently need for the pre-existing condition that prices me out or outright eliminates me from coverage is to take a medication that millions of women take optionally every day: birth control pills. It’s that simple. But I can’t get coverage for any other problems I have or might develop, because my ailment in some cases, for other people, requires more than The Pill. Might my condition someday require more than The Pill? Sure. But if I take The Pill regularly and can see my doctor regularly for checkups, it greatly lessens the chances of my condition worsening, because we can monitor and adjust my medication and so on, as needed.
We** know** that people who have chronic conditions have better outcomes when they have regular access to consistent medical care. We know that people with chronic conditions are mostly likely to get consistent medical care when they’re sure that they can afford it which means, for the vast majority of people, insurance. But the system as it stands now ignores these things and makes it more difficult for these people to get care, even though they’re the ones who need it the most.
How do small, incremental changes address a huge, huge problem? 48 million uninsured Americans don’t really have the time to wait for small, incremental changes that will get some of them insurance in drips and drabs. There is a human cost here. 45,000 people dying annually for lack of affordable healthcare cannot wait for little changes to be applied over time to solve the problem. If anything, the proposed changes don’t go far enough. They’re a bandaid on a gaping wound.
The six month period is a start. But it’s not enough, especially not for people with chronic conditions that could be causally linked to just about anything systemic that goes wrong with them in the six month interval before care starts.
You didn’t answer my question.
Do you have a cite for the 45,000 statistic?
Your questions seem to assume that the sole reason for heath care reform is to decrease the number of uninsureds, That is not the case. One of the very real problems facing people is the potential to go bankrupt overnight because a family member is suddenly in need of very expensive, intensive care. So the catastrophic illness pool is designed to address that specific problem.
Tort reform, capping the dollar amount of jury awards would reduce the risk to insurance companies, which would directly reduce the premiums doctors have to pay, which we directly improve their ability to offer health care for less money. 60 Minutes did a piece on this a few years ago. Some doctors had to pay over half a million dollars in insurance each year. This 1) raises costs and 2) depletes the doctor pool. Some doctors interviewed had decided to stop providing care and took a job in medical research. We should want more doctors, not fewer. As that is another route to decreasing cost and making health care affordable to more people.
I don’t see the problem with your doctor accepting insurance from an out-of-state company. Once the law is passed that makes it legal for companies to sell the insurance across state lines, they;; be able to pay your doctors just as well as an in-state company. Look at auto insurance. Their or myriad companies offering insurance. I don’t care where they are locate. I care that if I have a claim, that Allstate, Geico, StateFarm, etc. pay to have my car fixed. I don’t see any problem in this regard. Some regulations and guidelines will have to be issued, just like any other commerce. I think this would cause insurance companies to be more sweeping in their coverage, for two reasons: 1) they’d have to compete with more companies, and 2) they’d seek to simplify doing business by crafting an offering that is good in big bunches, if not all, states.
What if we just made sure everyone had health insurance from the moment they are born? That way, there wouldn’t be any difficulty trying to obtain, or trying to afford insurance due to pre-existing conditions because everyone would have pre-existing insurance before the condition ever developed. Has anyone ever thought of that solution?*
- I read somewhere that this has been tried in some far-off land but I’m skeptical. As much as I like the idea, surely any country bold enough to try it would be expending a lot more of their GDP on health-care then we in the USA currently expend. Right?
Actually, Bricker’s position on gay marriage is 180º from the Church’s, IIRC.
Except that it doesn’t. It has no effect on overutilization by doctors, and little effect on premiums. Most of the malpractice suitsare settled for sums below the caps that tort reform would put in place.
I see a problem with doctors spending as much (although it would certainly be more) time with reps from insurance companies as they currently do with pharmaceutical company reps. Which is 4-8 hours a week, in case you’re curious. All in order to accept an insurer that is essentially the same as the ones that already operate in the area, except they’re not bound by the state’s regulations.
That was a poor attempt to try and justify who and what you are.
Law suits are ,depending on who you cite, from 1 to 3 percent of the health care costs. It is another argument ripped deep from your sphincter.
How many times would a doctor have to meet with an insurance company? I assume the pharma people are there all the time pitching new drugs. It seems that the insurance company really only have to meet with a physician once. Am I missing something here?
You know, upon reading through this extensive thread that started out as paraphrasing here : Republicans are obstructionist pigs who don’t give us anything to work with, it has since evolved into Republicans now give us grand ideas to which we don’t ascribe so they are still obstructionist pigs who don’t lay down for what we want.
This thread has performed exactly what it was asked to perform i.e… Give Republican recommendations to what they think would help health care reform.
It isn’t enough though is it? It never is.
This isn’t appropriate for Great Debates, gonzomax. Keep remarks like this in the Pit.
OK…I`m not from the US and I am covered by a government health care plan that covers all in our country…including landed immigrants.
I have only one question about all that I am reading…what is a pre-existing condition? Is it something you are born with? And if this is so, how can this even morally not be covered by health insurance? If this is the case, I would probably race to abort a potentially unhealthy fetus or face a life of poverty for the rest of mine and my children(s) lives. For a first world nation, I find this concept unfathomable.
Im happy Im not a US citizen 