RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:45:22 PM)

i dont need to support it... i live it. take a walk into almost any restraurant, ask a few servers, cooks, ect... see what you are told.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

i dont need to support it... i live it. talk a walk into almost any restraurant, ask a few servers, cooks, ect... see what you are told.



And as virtually every lib, including you, has said to me "not good enough". My company's experience is vastly wider than your individual experience. Im telling you that you are wrong. If you have anything but personal anecdotes, bring it on. [Hint: remember what I said coverage IS correlated with?].




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:50:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Siggghhh, more poorly thought out points.




you got one more time.

quote:




And yes...companies and individuals both have the right to get what they pay for. Companies are just representatives of their stockholders, and they damn well shouldnt be "loyal" to someone who isn't pulling their weight. Blind loyalty is...guess what...another subsidy, this one to those who least deserve it..the capable but non-performing employee.


who says employees arent pulling their weight? are you implying insurance is dropped because companies feel its not necessary to offer it to employees to keep themselves healthy?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:55:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Siggghhh, more poorly thought out points.




you got one more time.

quote:




And yes...companies and individuals both have the right to get what they pay for. Companies are just representatives of their stockholders, and they damn well shouldnt be "loyal" to someone who isn't pulling their weight. Blind loyalty is...guess what...another subsidy, this one to those who least deserve it..the capable but non-performing employee.


who says employees arent pulling their weight? are you implying insurance is dropped because companies feel its not necessary to offer it to employees to keep themselves healthy?



Do you even bother to read before you post anymore? What is BLIND LOYALTY to an employee? ...loyalty to someone for reasons that are blind to their performance.

And your last question has nothing to do with anything I posted, stated or implied.

"you got one more time" ROFL, what is that a threat?




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:56:07 PM)

3. Types of Employment, Firm Size, and Employee Status

Another major factor underlying the declining rates of employer coverage is the shift of employment from high coverage industries such as manufacturing to lower coverage industries such as service industries. Job market trends toward small business employment, part-time work, and lower-wage industries contribute to the increasing numbers of employees without health insurance. For example, a Minnesota study reported that although most employers contributed to the cost of employee insurance, over 50% stated that they either had not worked long enough or did not work enough hours to be eligible. Nationally, the percentage of workers employed in firms with fewer than 25 employees has increased from 28.5% in 1989 to 30.3% percent in 1994 (29.3% in 1996). In addition, the percentage of workers employed part-time increased from 17.7 % in 1989 to 19.3% in 1994. There has also been an increase in lower wage employees, with the percentage of workers earning less than $250 per week increasing from 22.3 % in 1989 to 25.3% in 1994.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/hinsubst/Chap5.htm

Most Americans (61 percent) get their health coverage through their jobs, so employer-sponsored coverage remains the bedrock of our system of health insurance coverage. Yet, at the same time, workers are losing access to employer-sponsored health care. Nationwide, the percentage of adults under 65 covered by their employer dropped from 67 to 63 percent between 2001 and 2003.1 A recent study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that the percentage of workers in New York State with employer-based coverage dropped from 65.3 in 2001 to 63.7 in 2003.2 Further, across the U.S., only 57 percent of employers provide coverage, and New York’s offer rate is the same as this national average.3

While the employer-based system is a promising foundation for expanding coverage, the rate of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage of all workers is decreasing, and low-income workers have been particularly hard hit. From 2001 to 2003, employer-provided coverage of low-income adults fell from 37 percent to 33 percent nationwide.4

In addition, workers are being asked to pay a greater share of their health benefits. Since 1998, the amount workers contribute to premiums has skyrocketed. For example, the average monthly premium contribution has risen from $8 in 1988 to $47 today for an individual worker. For family coverage, the employee share has ballooned from $52 in 1998 to $222.5

Cost-sharing–the proportion of deductibles and copayments that workers are asked to pay— has increased significantly since 2001. For example, deductibles in PPO plans (the most common type of health plan) have risen by nearly 40 percent since 2001.6

Although it may seem counterintuitive, nationally, firms with a high percentage of low-wage workers typically ask workers to contribute significantly more (20 percent of premiums) towards the cost of their health insurance than firms with fewer low-wage workers (15 percent of premiums).7

In a recent study performed by Families USA, we found that more than more than 10 million Americans enrolled in health insurance paid more than 25 percent of their earnings for health care in 2004, an increase of 26.5 percent since 2000.8

The Health Care Security Act will keep insurance affordable for workers in the service industries. The Act sets the standard of health coverage as the prevailing industry health package. In each of these industries in New York City the prevailing package allows workers to access care because it has very limited cost-sharing and a reasonable benefits package,. By holding employers to the prevailing industry standard of health benefits, the Health Care Security Act will ensure that workers can continue to afford their benefits and access health care. Also, by encouraging employers to either offer coverage or pay a fee, the Health Care Security Act will help reverse the trends of higher cost sharing and decreasing rates of employer-sponsored coverage.

Low-wage service workers are more likely to be uninsured than other workers. The Health Care Security Act will provide needed health coverage to these vulnerable workers.
As you might imagine, low-wage workers are less likely to have health insurance coverage than higher-wage workers. Nearly half of workers nationwide who do not have health insurance earn less than $10 an hour.9 The Health Care Security Act would help alleviate this inequity by requiring that service-industry employers, regardless of the wages they pay to workers, provide health coverage.

Service workers in particular are less likely to be offered coverage by employers and are also less likely to be covered by employer health plans than workers in other industries. In 2004, only 76 percent of service workers nationwide were offered coverage by their employer. By comparison, 91 percent of workers in manufacturing and 90 percent of transportation, communication, and utility workers were offered coverage.10 Also in 2004, only 59 percent of service workers were actually covered by their employer’s health benefit plan, compared to 80 percent of workers in manufacturing and 82 percent of transportation, communication, and utility workers.

Further, many uninsured Americans are in working families. Four out of five Americans who were uninsured for all or part of 2002 and 2003 were in working families.11 Of New Yorkers, 75.1 percent of the uninsured are in working families.12 As I mentioned earlier, workers are uninsured primarily because employers do not offer health insurance or because the workers cannot afford their share of the premiums.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=service+industry%2C+insurance+coverage+dropped&fr=slv8-iobit&u=www.familiesusa.org/assets/docs/Families_USA_Testimony_12-10-04_Final7d9a.doc&w=service+industry+industries+insurance+coverage+dropped+drop+drops&d=TCY7BRlMTN2Q&icp=1&.intl=us




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 7:57:20 PM)

i dont threaten, willbe... enjoy your evening




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 8:04:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

3. Types of Employment, Firm Size, and Employee Status

Another major factor underlying the declining rates of employer coverage is the shift of employment from high coverage industries such as manufacturing to lower coverage industries such as service industries. Job market trends toward small business employment, part-time work, and lower-wage industries contribute to the increasing numbers of employees without health insurance. For example, a Minnesota study reported that although most employers contributed to the cost of employee insurance, over 50% stated that they either had not worked long enough or did not work enough hours to be eligible. Nationally, the percentage of workers employed in firms with fewer than 25 employees has increased from 28.5% in 1989 to 30.3% percent in 1994 (29.3% in 1996). In addition, the percentage of workers employed part-time increased from 17.7 % in 1989 to 19.3% in 1994. There has also been an increase in lower wage employees, with the percentage of workers earning less than $250 per week increasing from 22.3 % in 1989 to 25.3% in 1994.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/hinsubst/Chap5.htm

Most Americans (61 percent) get their health coverage through their jobs, so employer-sponsored coverage remains the bedrock of our system of health insurance coverage. Yet, at the same time, workers are losing access to employer-sponsored health care. Nationwide, the percentage of adults under 65 covered by their employer dropped from 67 to 63 percent between 2001 and 2003.1 A recent study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that the percentage of workers in New York State with employer-based coverage dropped from 65.3 in 2001 to 63.7 in 2003.2 Further, across the U.S., only 57 percent of employers provide coverage, and New York’s offer rate is the same as this national average.3

While the employer-based system is a promising foundation for expanding coverage, the rate of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage of all workers is decreasing, and low-income workers have been particularly hard hit. From 2001 to 2003, employer-provided coverage of low-income adults fell from 37 percent to 33 percent nationwide.4

In addition, workers are being asked to pay a greater share of their health benefits. Since 1998, the amount workers contribute to premiums has skyrocketed. For example, the average monthly premium contribution has risen from $8 in 1988 to $47 today for an individual worker. For family coverage, the employee share has ballooned from $52 in 1998 to $222.5

Cost-sharing–the proportion of deductibles and copayments that workers are asked to pay— has increased significantly since 2001. For example, deductibles in PPO plans (the most common type of health plan) have risen by nearly 40 percent since 2001.6

Although it may seem counterintuitive, nationally, firms with a high percentage of low-wage workers typically ask workers to contribute significantly more (20 percent of premiums) towards the cost of their health insurance than firms with fewer low-wage workers (15 percent of premiums).7

In a recent study performed by Families USA, we found that more than more than 10 million Americans enrolled in health insurance paid more than 25 percent of their earnings for health care in 2004, an increase of 26.5 percent since 2000.8

The Health Care Security Act will keep insurance affordable for workers in the service industries. The Act sets the standard of health coverage as the prevailing industry health package. In each of these industries in New York City the prevailing package allows workers to access care because it has very limited cost-sharing and a reasonable benefits package,. By holding employers to the prevailing industry standard of health benefits, the Health Care Security Act will ensure that workers can continue to afford their benefits and access health care. Also, by encouraging employers to either offer coverage or pay a fee, the Health Care Security Act will help reverse the trends of higher cost sharing and decreasing rates of employer-sponsored coverage.

Low-wage service workers are more likely to be uninsured than other workers. The Health Care Security Act will provide needed health coverage to these vulnerable workers.
As you might imagine, low-wage workers are less likely to have health insurance coverage than higher-wage workers. Nearly half of workers nationwide who do not have health insurance earn less than $10 an hour.9 The Health Care Security Act would help alleviate this inequity by requiring that service-industry employers, regardless of the wages they pay to workers, provide health coverage.

Service workers in particular are less likely to be offered coverage by employers and are also less likely to be covered by employer health plans than workers in other industries. In 2004, only 76 percent of service workers nationwide were offered coverage by their employer. By comparison, 91 percent of workers in manufacturing and 90 percent of transportation, communication, and utility workers were offered coverage.10 Also in 2004, only 59 percent of service workers were actually covered by their employer’s health benefit plan, compared to 80 percent of workers in manufacturing and 82 percent of transportation, communication, and utility workers.

Further, many uninsured Americans are in working families. Four out of five Americans who were uninsured for all or part of 2002 and 2003 were in working families.11 Of New Yorkers, 75.1 percent of the uninsured are in working families.12 As I mentioned earlier, workers are uninsured primarily because employers do not offer health insurance or because the workers cannot afford their share of the premiums.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=service+industry%2C+insurance+coverage+dropped&fr=slv8-iobit&u=www.familiesusa.org/assets/docs/Families_USA_Testimony_12-10-04_Final7d9a.doc&w=service+industry+industries+insurance+coverage+dropped+drop+drops&d=TCY7BRlMTN2Q&icp=1&.intl=us



I see youre coming around. Thank you for posting confirmation of the correlations between coverage and the criteria I mentioned. That "service vs manufacturing" also is somewhat correlated to those criteria high level statistics may give the appearance of correlation to service vs manufacturing. However at a detail level, large incorporated (non-union) service companies are no less likely to give coverage than large (non-union) manufacturing companies, and small manufacturing companies are no more likely than small service companies...ie the correlation with service vs manufacturing is extremely weak and may in fact be negative. (I exclude unionized companies because whether they are service or manufacturing is their organization status that provides the nearly 100% correlation, not service vs manufacturing).




Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 8:07:49 PM)

How the mighty do fall... especially when carrying a few extra pounds and are subject to cardio problems. I cannot tell you how many men I have had to work with that had the world by the balls, got sick and then lost their grip and came slobbering and sobbing to me to help them. When I was nothing but that weakling, sicky before.

I had one today tell me I needed to get my 'issues' taken care of... you know... my son, my health. Um... let's see... is there something I am not doing or addressing? The issue was, he was attracted to me... but I had these lil messes I needed to clean up before he would consider me. lol Life is what it is and sometimes people get sick and that's the way it is. No one is immune.

Talking big like everyone has the same opportunity and all... well... its a blindness for which there is very little chance of a cure. Talk that shit when ordering your next meal from the low life... and see what that gets you. I am pretty sure they even made a movie about such things. lol I just think those with money and who have had a good run... talk funny. I'll be hanging with the others... over on this side of the tracks. lol




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 8:10:08 PM)

willbe, what i am coming around too is your pompus attitude about workers who you feel are beneath you.. as well as posters on this board that you attack at every turn when their line of thought does not fall into your way of thinking....

i am done with you and others of your ilk. i learned long ago you can debate without making it personal. perhaps when you learn the same, and can show it through thoughtful, inciteful posts regarding issues and not make others your personal whipping posts, then we can return to debates...

selective ignore is a wonderful option on threads.... just like in life. you can have your opinions... and i can choose to ignore them




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 8:18:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lockit

How the mighty do fall... especially when carrying a few extra pounds and are subject to cardio problems. I cannot tell you how many men I have had to work with that had the world by the balls, got sick and then lost their grip and came slobbering and sobbing to me to help them. When I was nothing but that weakling, sicky before.

I had one today tell me I needed to get my 'issues' taken care of... you know... my son, my health. Um... let's see... is there something I am not doing or addressing? The issue was, he was attracted to me... but I had these lil messes I needed to clean up before he would consider me. lol Life is what it is and sometimes people get sick and that's the way it is. No one is immune.

Talking big like everyone has the same opportunity and all... well... its a blindness for which there is very little chance of a cure. Talk that shit when ordering your next meal from the low life... and see what that gets you. I am pretty sure they even made a movie about such things. lol I just think those with money and who have had a good run... talk funny. I'll be hanging with the others... over on this side of the tracks. lol



lol... oh how i know. when i was nursing, i had a cardiac patient who was talking so calmly to someone on the phone about the plumbing in his house. calm serene and in control, i listened as he basically pleaded with this man to come fix his problem before the wife got home from her vacation. he hung up, looked at his tray, then slung it across the room, screaming at me that he didnt want that mess on his tray and to clean it up. well, i did clean it up, and just before i left, i closed the door, leaned in close to say.. calmly.. to him

its a pretty fucked up attitude when you bag someone on the phone to take care of the plumbing in your house, and treat the person who is taking care of the plumbing in your body like shit... but.. please.. do have a good evening, asshole.

and i walked out. i fully expected to get called on the carpet. what i got was a dozen roses, and the staff got an appology for his treatment of all the staff.

people can believe they are above everyone because of how much jingle they have in their pockets, the sizes of their homes and 401k plans, how many vacations they can take a year, how many people they can fuck over. eventually, those you stomp over on your way up, you will meet again when you come sliding down.




Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 8:27:52 PM)

I am pretty sure that could have been my ex husband. Watching him fall was such a joy! He stomped all over people and then it was his turn! lol Then he calls me back wanting to know if I was still remarried! lol To you... I will die married, you are a hard limit.




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 1:15:18 AM)



What's so great about private health insurance?
The bloody battle in Congress over a 'public option' ignores the insurers' role in creating the nation's healthcare crisis and their efforts to throttle reform.
Michael Hiltzik


August 3, 2009

Throughout the heroic struggle in Congress to provide a "public option" in health insurance, one question never seems to get answered: Why are we so intent on protecting the private option?

The "public option," as followers of the debate know, is a government-sponsored health plan that would be available as an alternative to, and in competition with, the for-profit health insurance industry, otherwise known as the private option.

On Friday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce narrowly passed a reform bill incorporating a public option resembling Medicare. It was a bloody fight among members of Congress, some of whom believe that the public option will give the government unwarranted power over healthcare, and all of whom enjoy government-provided healthcare that's a lot better than what most of us get.

But the battle is just beginning. After the committee vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that the health insurance industry will conduct a "shock and awe" campaign to kill the public option when Congress returns from vacation in September and starts debating the measure. We can expect to be overwhelmed with an industry ad campaign worth millions of dollars (remember Harry and Louise?) exhorting us to write our lawmakers to preserve the American way of healthcare.

So it's proper to remind ourselves what that American way entails. For if the insurers have proved anything over the last 15 years as the health crisis has gathered speed like an avalanche roaring downhill, it's that they're part of the problem, not the solution.

The firms take billions of dollars out of the U.S. healthcare wallet as profits, while imposing enormous administrative costs on doctors, hospitals, employers and patients. They've introduced complexity into the system at every level. Your doctor has to fight them to get approval for the treatment he or she thinks is best for you. Your hospital has to fight them for approval for every day you're laid up. Then they have to fight them to get their bills paid, and you do too.


One Wendell Potter reminded a Senate committee in June that health insurance executives had assured Congress in 1993 that they would work to secure universal medical coverage and end denials of coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Then they moved heaven and earth to kill reform.

They've made the same promises now, Potter observed. But they're in an even better position to throttle reform. Mergers and acquisitions have turned the industry into a cartel of huge corporations.

"The industry is bigger, richer and stronger, and it has a much tighter grip on our healthcare system," he said. The last thing they want is a government program set up as their competition.


Potter knows the insurers' ways because he was a top executive in the industry for 20 years. But the hard numbers bear him out. The two largest insurers, WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group, each acquired 11 other insurers between 2000 and 2007. They now control a total of 67 million "covered lives" (that's customers in health insurance-speak).

This consolidation has produced functional monopolies in communities across America. The American Medical Assn. (itself no great fan of reform) found in a 2007 survey that in 76% of the country, defined as its major metropolitan statistical areas, one insurer had a share of 50% or more of the conventional insurance market. This phenomenon gives the companies enormous power to drive up premiums and maximize profits.

Why do we tolerate this? The industry loves to promote surveys indicating that most Americans are "satisfied" with their current health insurance -- 37% are "very satisfied" and 17% "extremely satisfied," according to one such study.

Yet these figures are misleading. Most people are satisfied with their current insurance because most people never have a complex encounter with the health insurance bureaucracy. Medical care generally follows the so-called 80-20 statistical pattern -- 20% of patients consume 80% of care. If your typical encounter is an annual checkup or treatment of the kids' sniffles, or even a serious but routine condition such as a heart attack, your experience is probably satisfactory.

But it's on the margins where the challenges exist. Anyone whose condition is even slightly out of the ordinary knows the sinking feeling of entering health insurance hell -- pre-authorizations, denials, appeals, and days, weeks, even months wasted waiting for resolution.

And that's among people with affordable employer-paid insurance, an ever-shrinking cohort. The percentage of small and medium-sized businesses offering health coverage to employees shriveled to 38% from 67% between 1995 and 2008, according to the National Small Business Assn. Without reform, the number will continue to plummet.

Meanwhile, people employed by big companies that offer a health plan are within a layoff notice of losing coverage for themselves or their families, joining America's 46 million uninsured.

Their only alternative right now is the individual market, where insurers scrutinize applicants' medical histories, looking for reasons to turn them down or charge them exorbitant premiums. Have hay fever, asthma, a cholesterol pill prescription? Are you a woman of child-bearing age? You're virtually uninsurable at an affordable cost.

Even if you're accepted, your carrier reserves the right to cancel your policy retroactively if it finds that you left even a tiny condition from years back off your application.

The public option may be your lifeline -- if it's enacted.

Signs of the industry's mobilization against the public option are everywhere. I don't claim clairvoyance for having predicted this development back in March; given the industry's record on reform, a child could have done so.


You've heard of the Blue Dog Democrats, those mostly rural conservatives who blocked a summertime vote on reform legislation on Capitol Hill? According to the Center for Public Integrity, the biggest backer of the Blue Dogs’ political action committee is the healthcare industry, which is on the path to pumping a total of $1.2 million into the PAC's maw in the current 2009-10 election cycle.


Then there's the advocacy group called the Campaign for an American Solution, which describes itself as "a grass-roots effort . . . to build support for workable healthcare reform." The organization owns up to being an "initiative" of America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, the industry's chief lobbying arm. Unless I've missed a radical change in lawn and garden horticulture, you can't get much further from the grass roots than to be a creation of the industry with the biggest stake in the debate.


Despite all this, America's health insurance plans, which helped create our dysfunctional world, are deferred to as though they're a disinterested party. AHIP subtitled one of its policy papers "A Vision for Reform." But are the insurers now, and have they ever been, anything other than a roadblock?


Michael Hiltzik's column appears Mondays and Thursdays. Reach him at [email protected], read previous columns at www.latimes.com/hiltzik, and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik3-2009aug03,0,6650122.column?track=rss




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 1:58:15 AM)

Olbermann Legislators for sale - Countdown with Keith Olbermann- msnbc.com

In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann slams members of Congress for acting more in the interests of their health industry campaign donors than their constituents who so clearly favor health care reform.

VIDEO

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32276889/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann




cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 3:39:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.


Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?


I already have. Here it is again:

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Next steps: Cue up the ad hominen about Heritage. Challenge the responders to dispute the numbers. Responders disappear or play semantic games.

"However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars."

And of course, DK, in his usual cut his losses mode, chose not to respond to it, and in fact repeats the 3% bullshit claim whenever he can.


The study you cite excludes plays semantic games, excludes large chunks of the overhead of private insurances to arrive at their numbers by narrowly redefining administrative costs while adding costs to Medicare's overhead arbitrarily.

Basically, according to them, only little more than claims processing is administrative. Gone is the cost of the general bureaucratic apparatus. Gone are the CEO salaries and private jets. They do include the profits - but given that Kaiser and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and a few others are nominally non-profits, that isn't saying much.

And in the end, they fail: even after excluding all that, even on the nonsensical per-person basis, private health insurance STILL has costs that are only marginally lower than Medicare despite processing far fewer claims.

But that's hardly surprising given the source.





ROFL.

Ok.

What "private insurances have been excluded?" What costs are inconsistently or improperly defined as "administrative"?

What "bureaucratic costs" have been ignored for one or the other, and if ignored for both do you really think that a comparison with the government would be favorable? And at the start of this part of the thread you pooh pooh .58% or 1% of health care spending yet with a straight face you mention CEO salaries and private jets? Ludicrous, even if they were administrative costs, which they arent.


They aren't? I'd call that a top manager of a business is doing nothing but "administration". But in the end, it really doesn't matter what you call it - point is that these items are built into the private health insurance premiums and thus cost the taxpayer (or premium payer - same thing) money. You can play the Heritage Foundation's game all day long, but somebody has to pay these - ajnd that's the tax payer/insured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And then after all that you at least agree that they ARE marginally lower in private practice, when the implication of your original statement was "Whoa, 30% vs 4%, the government stepping in can reduce administrative costs 26%.


I did no such thing. I said that the MISCALCULATED administrative costs for private health insurance is still only marginally lower. The actual administrative cost using correct math is substantially higher, even with the nonsensical counting per insured the way the Heritage Foundation did.

Oh, and reducing administrative costs from 30% to 4% is a reduction by 87.8%.





cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 3:47:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is another strawman in the national health care debate. It is done to avoid facing the debate about subsidies, because most Americans don't believe in mandatory redistribution of wealth, which is exactly what subsidies are.

The fact is that anyone can get coverage for almost any pre-existing condition in most states, as long as they are willing to pay the premium. The concept, for example, of "insuring" someone for the costs of their medications for a chronic pre-existing condition is either an oxymoron or a plea for subsidization. You cannot "insure" against certainty..the appropriate premium would be 100% of the cost plus administration, unless it is subsidized by someone else. Put another way, insurance is pooling against risk, and if something is certain, there is no risk to pool.


EXACTLY! Thank you so much for explaining better than I ever could why we need health care reform, why insurance is a fundamentally flawed approach.





cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 3:51:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

What a load of hooey.

...

And she "dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance"? I call bullshit. If they are healthy kids and she "dreaded" $100 a month for a very comprehensive medical and dental plan then she should learn how to budget better.


Not sure what world you live in where $100/month can buy you any kind of meaningful health insurance...

What a load of hooey indeed.





Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 7:26:14 AM)


When people get shit for free they don't respect it. What do you think the results would be if the government threw open the doors to all the car dealers, shopping malls and supermarkets and said from now on its all free, no one pays for anything.

It would be hell and chaos from there, kind of like you're describing here. Why do you expect free government health care to be any different? The socialists in charge are greatly devaluing it.

And why study to become a doctor if Obama's going to limit your paycheck, when you could become a lawyer instead, and chase ambulances for a living. Socialists will never limit their cut of healthcare dollars... they contribute too much to the Democratic party!


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
lol... oh how i know. when i was nursing, i had a cardiac patient who was talking so calmly to someone on the phone about the plumbing in his house. calm serene and in control, i listened as he basically pleaded with this man to come fix his problem before the wife got home from her vacation. he hung up, looked at his tray, then slung it across the room, screaming at me that he didnt want that mess on his tray and to clean it up. well, i did clean it up, and just before i left, i closed the door, leaned in close to say.. calmly.. to him

its a pretty fucked up attitude when you bag someone on the phone to take care of the plumbing in your house, and treat the person who is taking care of the plumbing in your body like shit... but.. please.. do have a good evening, asshole.

and i walked out. i fully expected to get called on the carpet. what i got was a dozen roses, and the staff got an appology for his treatment of all the staff.

people can believe they are above everyone because of how much jingle they have in their pockets, the sizes of their homes and 401k plans, how many vacations they can take a year, how many people they can fuck over. eventually, those you stomp over on your way up, you will meet again when you come sliding down.




cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 7:37:08 AM)

Why study to become a doctor if private HMOs are going to limit your paycheck?

And I'm very surprised that you of all people call the US health insurance industry "Socialists". The contribute to both parties equally, BTW (and more than any other industry).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
And why study to become a doctor if Obama's going to limit your paycheck, when you could become a lawyer instead, and chase ambulances for a living. Socialists will never limit their cut of healthcare dollars... they contribute too much to the Democratic party!






tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 8:05:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


When people get shit for free they don't respect it. What do you think the results would be if the government threw open the doors to all the car dealers, shopping malls and supermarkets and said from now on its all free, no one pays for anything.

It would be hell and chaos from there, kind of like you're describing here. Why do you expect free government health care to be any different? The socialists in charge are greatly devaluing it.

And why study to become a doctor if Obama's going to limit your paycheck, when you could become a lawyer instead, and chase ambulances for a living. Socialists will never limit their cut of healthcare dollars... they contribute too much to the Democratic party!


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
lol... oh how i know. when i was nursing, i had a cardiac patient who was talking so calmly to someone on the phone about the plumbing in his house. calm serene and in control, i listened as he basically pleaded with this man to come fix his problem before the wife got home from her vacation. he hung up, looked at his tray, then slung it across the room, screaming at me that he didnt want that mess on his tray and to clean it up. well, i did clean it up, and just before i left, i closed the door, leaned in close to say.. calmly.. to him

its a pretty fucked up attitude when you bag someone on the phone to take care of the plumbing in your house, and treat the person who is taking care of the plumbing in your body like shit... but.. please.. do have a good evening, asshole.

and i walked out. i fully expected to get called on the carpet. what i got was a dozen roses, and the staff got an appology for his treatment of all the staff.

people can believe they are above everyone because of how much jingle they have in their pockets, the sizes of their homes and 401k plans, how many vacations they can take a year, how many people they can fuck over. eventually, those you stomp over on your way up, you will meet again when you come sliding down.



If a Dr goes into medicine strictly because of the paycheck, i would rather he became a lawyer. That situation was with a man who could have bought the hospital i worked at in Myrtle Beach a few times over without blinking an eye. ya know, last night i really sat down and thought. those without healthcare do more for this country, and for far less money, than those who sit behind a desk shoveling aside paperwork and calling it work.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/5/2009 8:07:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

willbe, what i am coming around too is your pompus attitude about workers who you feel are beneath you.. as well as posters on this board that you attack at every turn when their line of thought does not fall into your way of thinking....

i am done with you and others of your ilk. i learned long ago you can debate without making it personal. perhaps when you learn the same, and can show it through thoughtful, inciteful posts regarding issues and not make others your personal whipping posts, then we can return to debates...

selective ignore is a wonderful option on threads.... just like in life. you can have your opinions... and i can choose to ignore them



1. I dont feel any workers are "beneath me". There is nothing in any of my posts that could be interpreted that way.
2. I dont attack posters for disgreeing with me, I attack them for lack of knowledge, lack of research or poor logic.
3. Done with me and others of our ilk? Retreat is so unlike you, you must really be embarassed.

I will thorougly enjoy destroying your posts if they continue to be as weak as they have for the past several days. Whether you respond or not is of no matter, since you havent been able to respond with anything credible anyway.




Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875