Health Insurance Industry Still Wants To Cancel Sick People's Coverage

[dmagicglock]

Final Arguments and I rest my case:

Unemployment: I’m not pissed that everyone’s collecting it, I’m just pissed you’re collecting it, because you seem to have an affinity for wanting things handed to you. Maybe if you spent as much time and effort into researching universal handouts, as you did into finding a job... You wouldn't be unemployed and then you could enjoy paying taxes like I do. You have “great” philanthropic ideas, but those ideas don’t fit with our economic model. Our country was founded on small government, not a big government that provided everything for everyone. It’s like you were the little kid in kindergarten that tried to put the square peg through the round hole.

Japan: re-read on that, many studies I found said that the current system is delaying the inevitable and it will go bankrupt and if not, the cost to taxpayers will be overwhelming.

“As the Japanese population structure changes, health care and long-term care costs will steadily increase. The current style of financing (pay-as-you-go) will create a large increase in future burden of these costs. This paper studies an alternative policy that prefunds the social insurance benefits for the elderly.

During a transition process, the proposed scheme maintains a higher contribution rate in order to accumulate sufficient funds. Under our baseline scenario, the sum of the contribution rates toward health insurance and long-term care insurance increases from 5.06 percent of earnings to 12.41 percent of the same. The rate of increase in overall burdens, including taxes and subsidies, is 63 percent.

Our sensitivity analysis has shown that the quantitative implications of the increase in total burdens depend on social cost scenarios, the labor force, and the interest rate. However, labor force scenarios do not have a considerable impact on the rate of burden. As against this, the setting of social costs has a significant impact on the same.

Even under the most optimistic scenario, the rate of increase in total burden is 34 percent. Even though we cannot predict the exact amount of the necessary contribution rate that is capable enough to transfer the funded system, what we are sure of is that a significant increase in the contribution rate is inevitable. “

Tadashi Fukui, Yasushi Iwamoto

NBER Working Paper No. 12427
Issued in August 2006

McDonalds: You’re wrong, because you’re model assumes they have an endless supply of food and an endless supply of workers to support the demand. Nope instead, some people die of starvation waiting in line for food. And others when they get their food, it looks NOTHING like it did in the picture because they put it together so quick it and smashed it all around. Better yet, they didn’t even have enough time to cook it and so even more people die, this time of E. Coli poisoning.

Some people without insurance can already get it, they’re just too apathetic to do so:

"You talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to. Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens." So this 47 million uninsured number that the left and the media is always throwing around is disingenuous, it's largely irrelevant. They portray this number and it's grown from 42 to 43 million during the Clinton days, now it's magically up to 47 million and is just as accurate as their homeless number was inaccurate. So of the 47 million, they try to paint this picture that the system is so unfair and so mean that it's leaving 47 million Americans out, and it is not doing so.” - Rush Limbaugh

And why don’t we turn to the AMA, the biggest doctor’s association that I know if in America, consisting of 250,000 members… lets see what they had to say about Obama Care:

"The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs," read an organizational statement to the Senate Finance Committee. "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."

Without private insurers in the market, the statement added, "the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers."

How are you going to feel about paying for people's healthcare who are drug addicts? People who smoke? How about obese people who refuse to diet? Should we still pay for their bad choices? What about the squids who don't wear helmets or jackets, you want to pay for their skin grafts? The great thing about our system now is that 99% of the time, if someone makes bad choices, they have to pay for them... Not me.

[Disclaimer]

Obviously, you've done little research on your own - especially given the half a dozen or so links I just posted, but I'll go through your arguments again, because it's fun for me.

Final Arguments and I rest my case:

Unemployment: I’m not pissed that everyone’s collecting it, I’m just pissed you’re collecting it, because you seem to have an affinity for wanting things handed to you. Maybe if you spent as much time and effort into researching universal handouts, as you did into finding a job... You wouldn't be unemployed and then you could enjoy paying taxes like I do. You have “great” philanthropic ideas, but those ideas don’t fit with our economic model. Our country was founded on small government, not a big government that provided everything for everyone. It’s like you were the little kid in kindergarten that tried to put the square peg through the round hole.

Wow, harsh words. Judge not lest ye be judged...

That's a good one. I'm very much gainfully employed - ever since I was 18. So that pretty much shoots your pointing finger that I'm a freeloader out of the water, chief. Who knows, I might even make more than you, and I've got 30+ years left in the job market. Don't be bitter, you'll end up with a heart attack early in life - that I might have to finance, after your private insurance dicks you over.

And it's awful petty that just because I have a different opinion that you'd be upset if I was collecting it, but not everyone else. What gives you power to judge on a case-by-case just because you don't like someones political philosophy? Real big of you - shows your true colors. It's cool though, I'll do the "Christian thing" and turn the other cheek - and I'd still help you out if you were in need.

Japan: re-read on that, many studies I found said that the current system is delaying the inevitable and it will go bankrupt and if not, the cost to taxpayers will be overwhelming.

Yea, because our system ISN'T doing that, except at a more rapid pace Each system has issues, but we're going to hell in a hand basket a lot quicker than all the others'.

McDonalds: You’re wrong, because you’re model assumes they have an endless supply of food and an endless supply of workers to support the demand. Nope instead, some people die of starvation waiting in line for food. And others when they get their food, it looks NOTHING like it did in the picture because they put it together so quick it and smashed it all around. Better yet, they didn’t even have enough time to cook it and so even more people die, this time of E. Coli poisoning.

No, it doesn't, it just assumes there is enough - not limitless.

Some people without insurance can already get it, they’re just too apathetic to do so:

"You talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to. Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens." So this 47 million uninsured number that the left and the media is always throwing around is disingenuous, it's largely irrelevant. They portray this number and it's grown from 42 to 43 million during the Clinton days, now it's magically up to 47 million and is just as accurate as their homeless number was inaccurate. So of the 47 million, they try to paint this picture that the system is so unfair and so mean that it's leaving 47 million Americans out, and it is not doing so.” - Rush Limbaugh

Quoting Rush? One of the biggest political HACKS this side of the 21st century - srsly? Please. You believe in what this guy says? He "speaks" for you?

Regardless of how apathetic people are - somethings gotta be done before the money runs out - so, we need to corral those people, educated them, and give them an EASY way to opt into an insurance plan. Public plan would solve that.

And why don’t we turn to the AMA, the biggest doctor’s association that I know if in America, consisting of 250,000 members… lets see what they had to say about Obama Care:

"The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs," read an organizational statement to the Senate Finance Committee. "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."

Without private insurers in the market, the statement added, "the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers."

Funny, I remember reading a NYTimes article on that. Once again, only the partial story was presented - that's twice you've tried to sneak one in:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906160028

A June 16 New York Times article reported that President Obama addressed the American Medical Association (AMA) on June 15, "just days after the A.M.A. had signaled opposition to his proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of a menu of choices." But staff writers Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes did not note that after a June 10 Times article quoted a statement from the AMA saying the group opposes "a public health insurance option," the AMA backtracked from that position. The article marked at least the second time that the Times reported the AMA's "opposition" without noting its subsequent position that it is "willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress."

Then you continue...

How are you going to feel about paying for people's healthcare who are drug addicts? People who smoke? How about obese people who refuse to diet? Should we still pay for their bad choices? What about the squids who don't wear helmets or jackets, you want to pay for their skin grafts? The great thing about our system now is that 99% of the time, if someone makes bad choices, they have to pay for them... Not me.

We do regardless, so if I have to pay 'x' for them now + 'y' for my own health insurance, right now my costs are x + y. Or, had the option of paying 'z' where z < x + y. Then I choose z, depending on how 'apples to apples' z is compared to what I get with y. Follow that.

[r1crusher]

....so if I have to pay 'x' for them now + 'y' for my own health insurance, right now my costs are x + y. Or, had the option of paying 'z' where z < x + y. Then I choose z, depending on how 'apples to apples' z is compared to what I get with y. Follow that.

E = MC²

I iz maff gud.

[V4junkie]

Dude! Don't jump into the ring until the match is over.

Still think Justin is making the most sense.

[dmagicglock]

You're about as Christian as the Pope is Muslim. Just cause you have two wheels doesn't mean you're a motorcycle.

I don't get your link to the new york times article? it wasn't a misquote and the full article did nothing to recant anything that I posted, just had some political jargon from Obama.

If you can quote Obama who's more vested in this than anyone I can quote Limbaugh. I'm pretty sure he's more educated on the issue than both of us. And I don't let Limbaugh speak for me, he just happens to agree with a lot of my opinions, not the other way around. Also I referenced the NEW YORK TIMES one of the most liberal papers in the U.S. I didn't see you referencing any conservative view points supporting your argument?

Algebra: I'm not sure where you gather your algebraic equation but it doesn't add up. Right now, my private option costs me less than the estimated tax option plus my private option or minus my private option. I also like the idea of paying my private option to receive better care than purported holier than tho' government option. Your argument is the system is broken so we must have progress for the sake of progress? Sometimes progression can be a step backwards.

Seriously tho', I'm done... I'm not going to waste any more time on this argument, we've both supplied endless amounts of information for people on this forum to read and I'll allow them to form their own opinions.

[r1crusher]

Okay...I'll make my opinion known then.

I don't like paying for someone else's medical....AND....plans to create a 'great healthcare system' are not all they're cracked up to be.

I'm still waiting for the right person to stand up and say what needs to be said.

Now where did Perot and Paul run off to....

Edited June 26, 2009 by r1crusher

[V4junkie]

Paul/Colbert 2012!

[dmagicglock]

haha I posted a link to a ron paul video on healthcare and his views on the system some 40 posts ago? He had some good points on why the system is broken, and I think he knows well because he was a doctor for quite some time before becoming a politician.

[V4junkie]

I rarely follow links around here when at work

[Disclaimer]

You're about as Christian as the Pope is Muslim. Just cause you have two wheels doesn't mean you're a motorcycle.

This.... makes..... sense? I'm sorry?

I don't get your link to the new york times article? it wasn't a misquote and the full article did nothing to recant anything that I posted, just had some political jargon from Obama.

I never claimed your quote was wrong, only that you presented half the story. AMA recanted/clarified their stance later - and it wasn't reported.

Like, if I only told people was that you murdered someone - you're the bad guy. But if I tell them you murdered someone because they raped your sister - then you're the hero. Funny how details completely change perspectives.

If you can quote Obama who's more vested in this than anyone I can quote Limbaugh. I'm pretty sure he's more educated on the issue than both of us. And I don't let Limbaugh speak for me, he just happens to agree with a lot of my opinions, not the other way around. Also I referenced the NEW YORK TIMES one of the most liberal papers in the U.S. I didn't see you referencing any conservative view points supporting your argument?

Obama is an elected official. I can't vote to remove Rush from the radio. We are talking about the same Rush, right? The one who just recently blamed Republican Mark Sanford's extra marital affair on the Obama government. It's Obama's fault that Sanford was porking some chick that wasn't his wife.

Limbaugh Blames Sanford's Affair On Obama, Because Why Not?

That Rush? Yea, he's completely logical. You can put your tin foil helmet back on.

Algebra: I'm not sure where you gather your algebraic equation but it doesn't add up. Right now, my private option costs me less than the estimated tax option plus my private option or minus my private option. I also like the idea of paying my private option to receive better care than purported holier than tho' government option. Your argument is the system is broken so we must have progress for the sake of progress? Sometimes progression can be a step backwards.

You keep proclaiming you receive better care, yet I quoted you several posts ago saying how Ingenix was the devil and tried to screw you over. You've got to have the shortest memory in the world. And based on this, I think I can make the assumption you just believe the rhetoric you hear on Rush and haven't even bothered to do the research. You keep saying you've run the numbers, but I don't believe you because unless you're economically ignorant, I don't know why you think its more economically efficient for you to have profit-driven private insurance.

I've given more than sufficient information about VA care and other public options as well as health expert opinions and opinions from academia on public vs. private debate - and public wins out each time, except when you talk to people who have a vested interest in making MONEY off your ailment instead of actually caring about your health.

Edited June 26, 2009 by JRMMiii

[r1crusher]

I would also have to agree with certain points during the Paul run for office.

It's very much like has been said time and time again. People simply choose the lesser of two evils during electoral times.

I personally hate both the Republican AND Democratic parties....with a passion I might add!

[dmagicglock]

I don't get the rush story you posted? They interpreted his words, he didn't actually say Obama is the reason why he cheated on his wife. The huffington post, please...

As far as Ingenix goes, let me give you some better background information. Me in motorcycle accident: 10K in hospital bills... I pay for insurance through my work and my wife's work to eliminate costs. I know I know, whoa you have two insurances? The difference between two private insurances and a private and public insurance is that a primary and secondary private insurance, BOTH pay for the cost of my medical bills, not one or the other. So after 10k in medical bills, you know what I paid out of pocket? Roughly $200 bones. Tell me the government is going to do a better job than that? I'm sure I wouldn't have received a contrast IV immediately to check for internal bleeding and hemorrhaging... Ingenix in their form was acting as an arbitrator for the insurance company trying to see if some other insurance company should be responsible for paying out my bills, i.e. my auto policy. So I would have been covered either way, but it was proven that it was their responsibility to pay for the medical damages. I didn't want my autopolicy to pay for it, because my rates would most likely go up if I have a claim there, where as my rates for healthcare stay the same if I make a claim.

[Disclaimer]

I would also have to agree with certain points during the Paul run for office.

It's very much like has been said time and time again. People simply choose the lesser of two evils during electoral times.

I personally hate both the Republican AND Democratic parties....with a passion I might add!

This thread wasn't supposed to be a partisan debate - though it defacto gets split that the Dems = socialized care, and the Rep = free market

This was supposed to be a debate about public vs. private - regardless of political affiliation.

[dmagicglock]

Justin, we agree on something!!! I didn't want it to be a partisan debate, granted I quoted limbaugh and karl rove, but thats because they had made comments regarding the side of the issue that I was trying to present. Unfortunately because our country only has two major political parties, right now the bill is being pushed by the democrats and opposed by the republicans.

[Disclaimer]

I don't get the rush story you posted? They interpreted his words, he didn't actually say Obama is the reason why he cheated on his wife. The huffington post, please...

What's there to interpret? Rush SAID this:

LIMBAUGH: This Sanford business! I'll tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind, with Mark Sanford ... this is the first thought: What he did defies logic. This is ... more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust, or love. To split the scene for five days, and we know he's been separated, and he knows, by the way, that the newspaper in his state has the emails between him and his concubine down there in Argentina, he knows this. He knows that somebody knows what's going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days, doesn't leave anybody in charge of the state, in case there's an emergency.

LIMBAUGH: This is almost like: I don't give a damn! Country's going to hell in a handbasket. I just want out of here!

LIMBAUGH: He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle and said "What the hell? The Federal government is taking over! I want to enjoy life!"

Ok - we'll let the board members 'interpret' what that is supposed to mean.

As far as Ingenix goes, let me give you some better background information. Me in motorcycle accident: 10K in hospital bills... I pay for insurance through my work and my wife's work to eliminate costs. I know I know, whoa you have two insurances? The difference between two private insurances and a private and public insurance is that a primary and secondary private insurance, BOTH pay for the cost of my medical bills, not one or the other. So after 10k in medical bills, you know what I paid out of pocket? Roughly $200 bones. Tell me the government is going to do a better job than that? I'm sure I wouldn't have received a contrast IV immediately to check for internal bleeding and hemorrhaging... Ingenix in their form was acting as an arbitrator for the insurance company trying to see if some other insurance company should be responsible for paying out my bills, i.e. my auto policy. So I would have been covered either way, but it was proven that it was their responsibility to pay for the medical damages. I didn't want my autopolicy to pay for it, because my rates would most likely go up if I have a claim there, where as my rates for healthcare stay the same if I make a claim.

Umm, yea.. that's exactly what I'm saying. Your out of pocket would be similar on the gov't plan. The gov't plan focuses on preventative care and catastrophic care (like a motorcycle accident), not people that are hypochondriacs and abuse the system by going to the emergency room for a hangnail. This is similar to how HSA's are run today. It just requires people to take a more active roll in their own health care.

And, if you didn't like the public plan, you can keep your Ingenix.

[dmagicglock]

So you're saying the government is going to pay 98% of my medical costs on a bill that large? I just don't see it happening... And I'm not sure I would have got all the necessary tests or the follow up care as I did on the private system. Unfortunately a lot of the medical bill isn't even written yet, so only time will tell. I hope we don't have a public healthcare system, but if we do, I hope its as good as you say it is!

[r1crusher]

This thread wasn't supposed to be a partisan debate - though it defacto gets split that the Dems = socialized care, and the Rep = free market

This was supposed to be a debate about public vs. private - regardless of political affiliation.

Oh...sorry to step into the sandbox with the big kids.

But, privatized healthcare can continue to work just fine if...

...awe never mind.

[dmagicglock]

Oh...sorry to step into the sandbox with the big kids.

But, privatized healthcare can continue to work just fine if...

...awe never mind.

I just stepped out of the sandbox, my play time is over, have at it bro!

[V4junkie]

Ahaha he had his feelings hurted

[Disclaimer]

So you're saying the government is going to pay 98% of my medical costs on a bill that large? I just don't see it happening... And I'm not sure I would have got all the necessary tests or the follow up care as I did on the private system. Unfortunately a lot of the medical bill isn't even written yet, so only time will tell. I hope we don't have a public healthcare system, but if we do, I hope its as good as you say it is!

I don't understand why you can't fathom that? How can your PRIVATE insurer afford that if you don't think the gov't can? It works because you have other people paying into it. If you cover 100 people paying $100/mo that's $10000/mo you have in money. You place that in a mutual fund / money market and gain interest. If you have 3 people get in $10000 accidents over the course of the year - then you lose $30000 (but gain whatever copays - lets say $200ea. or $600 total so you actually only lose $29400), but you've also collected $120,000, and made interest on that over the year - at a modest 4%, would be around $4800. So income = $124800, outflow = $29400. Profit = $95400.

Given that everything is data driven... the numbers aren't as simple as I made them, but imagine the pool of money if you had a gov't plan with 100 times more people paying in, making 100x more interest... but, because they're only concerned about your health, it's non-profit, or very miniscule profit to maintain a slight surplus to ride out economic fluctuations. If the accident rates are the same... using my example - 3% "catastrophic" then everyone would only have to pay $50/mo with any profit to be banked in a surplus for the following year, and the payroll taxes adjusted according to historical data and forecasts. Not only that, but the 3% incidents don't cost $10k each anymore because centralized administration of a single payer plan reduces overhead and paperwork, so each accident only costs $8800.

I don't understand why it's so hard to figure out how to fund it, why it works, and how it's MUCH MORE economically efficient than private insurance.

[dmagicglock]

okay got tagged back into the sand box...

Name one thing the government has ever done more efficiently and cheaper than private industry? ... crickets... crickets Anyone?

Secondly, the government can't invest into money market funds, hedge funds, etc to make interest on their money. It's illegal. If that was the case then we could have a bigger push for privatization of social security.

[Disclaimer]

okay got tagged back into the sand box...

Name one thing the government has ever done more efficiently and cheaper than private industry? ... crickets... crickets Anyone?

Then there's nothing to worry about. That's a fallback argument. And there's at least a few examples there regulation works MUCH better, and I've posted those in other political threads, I'm just too lazy to dig them up right now.

Secondly, the government can't invest into money market funds, hedge funds, etc to make interest on their money. It's illegal. If that was the case then we could have a bigger push for privatization of social security.

Regardless, with no profit motive. It's going to be cheaper.

[r1crusher]

I understand what you're saying Justin. But you're expecting everyone in this country to trust the government to hold OUR money until we need it. This is the same government that can't even put a plan together to get out of debt AND stick to it.

[Disclaimer]

I understand what you're saying Justin. But you're expecting everyone in this country to trust the government to hold OUR money until we need it. This is the same government that can't even put a plan together to get out of debt AND stick to it.

True. The bold part is the problem, because we've got to deal with all this partisan bullspit. Every 4-8 years when the power swings, everything is reformed all over again, sometimes for the better, many times for the worse.

My contention though, is do you trust the gov't or trust an executive? You're only as good as the profit they can make off you, to the executive - if you're sick or have a pre-exisitng condition, you're a liability and uninsurable (or insurable for an ungodly amount) because they still HAVE to make profit. You still HAVE to end up paying out more than the value of the services you receive for the math to work and the insurers to stay in business. The gov't doesn't have that problem being a non-profit.

Clinton had a surplus. But we spent it all on war. I guess when you're killed on the battlefield you don't really care about having money for healthcare.

Edited June 26, 2009 by JRMMiii

[dmagicglock]

Then there's nothing to worry about. That's a fallback argument. And there's at least a few examples there regulation works MUCH better, and I've posted those in other political threads, I'm just too lazy to dig them up right now.

Regardless, with no profit motive. It's going to be cheaper.

Seriously, if all business models didn't have to worry about posting profits, you know how much debt we would be in? I'd still own stock in worldcomm and enron. The great thing about having to make a profit, is that it ensures your business is successful and that only successful businesses continue to proliferate and prosper. How do we judge the success of a public healthcare option versus a private plan if they can just continue to work and not have to worry about being in the "red". I'm sure with an infinite amount of money they can be more successful than the private industry, but at what financial cost to the tax payer?