quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Because otherwise, all that it's accomplished is to fuck us with a slightly different dick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Have you ever had a major illness? One requiring lengthy hospitalizations, surgeries and extensive diagnostics over a period of many years? How well do you think self-insuring would work in that case?

As I have already said, my experience is with routine care with the occasional hiccup (crowns, root canal and LEAP procedure).  I have also already explained that I cannot buy catastrophic only coverage where I live, which would handle your scenario.  I would have to buy a rounded coverage.  Since I cannot be denied care if I require lengthy hospitalizations, surgeries and extensive diagnostics over a period of many years, I'd still be treated and making payments.  Bad shit happens and sometimes it is expensive.  Sometimes people's houses flood and they don't have flood insurance.  Sometimes people total their car and only have liability insurance.  It is not up to the government to make sure I am never affected by bad things happening.

My own opinion is that I would rather the government address the cost of health care rather than mandating insurance coverage.  If the coasts were addressed, more people could afford insurance coverage, and those who cannot (or choose not to) would not be crippled by the inflated costs if bad shit happens.

I have always weighed my options.  Current coverage for me would be $388 per month here and would not include vision or dental, and coverage would be limited.  Any catastrophic event would still cripple me financially, even with insurance costing me $388 per month.  Since I have had no issues being uninsured before, and any major event would bankrupt me whether I have insurance or not, I just don't see the point.  If the government forces me to buy health insurance and it is some lame ass 60/40 policy, I will STILL be bankrupt in your scenario.  Only difference is that I will be forced to pay a monthly fee/tax to be in the exact same boat I am currently in. 

My mother does have a chronic disease and has had it for over 20 years.  She is a retired high school teacher so has a very limited income.  She even had to retire early due to the disease, so does not receive full pension.  Her retirement insurance it complete crap (as is most people's).  She is never denied care or any of her numerous medications (many of which are very expensive), and there is a lot of assistance available out there.  Her next surgery will be in January.  It's not her first back surgery and won't be her last.  No one has come to repossess her home or car for lack of payment, and no one is threatening to stop treating her.  Her disease is not even really considered life threatening.  It is just extremely painful, so a quality of life issue rather than a live or die issue.

If I am ever in need of extended care, I would expect it would be treated much like my mother's case is treated.  She still owes on her first back surgery and is soon going in for her third.  I don't know where these people live who say that people are being denied care for lack of insurance (and are dropping dead as a result).  I have not lived in every state, so I suppose it is possible.  However, I have lived in a couple of states that are on very opposite ends of the spectrum, and my experience (and that of my loved ones) is that we receive the care we need, regardless of our ability to pay for it or our medical insurance status. 

I'm just pissed that now I will be forced to pay private insurance companies my hard earned money to be exactly where I am right now.  I am better off putting that money in the bank and using it for routine and preventative care.  If something catastrophic happens, I'm bust with or without that shitty insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
An insurance company's motivation is selling policies, something that a good reputation helps with tremendously. They perform, or they lose business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

By the way, funny you should accuse the website I listed as a fantasy website, since they have 10 points that prove democrats live in a fantasy world. I believe they call that Irony. I appreciate the opportunity to expose liberal mentality every chance I get. Thanks.

http://babelishere.webs.com/liberals.html

Hurricane Katrina Survivor on the news cleaning up his yard:
"I'm a repubublican, I don't wait for the government to clean up my mess."

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveFreeAndSpank

Move to Canada. That will solve your problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Who do you think makes up for you and your mother's inability or unwillingness to purchase health care?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

In the case of your mother the bill as planned would provide subsidies to her as she seems to be getting now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

In your case you seem to be just refusing to purchase insurance intent on letting others pick up the bill if something happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And those others are everyone who is already responsible enough to carry their own insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveFreeAndSpank

Move to Canada. That will solve your problems.

ROFL

Which shows how little you understand the system here or there,

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And, btw, your assumption that only a 60/40 policy will be offered is incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

The version I read, and it may have changed again by now, had a 60/40 policy listed.  I was assuming that if the government was footing my bill, they would buy me the cheapest insurance they could and remain compliant.  I am not holding out any hopes that the government is going to buy me an 80/20 policy when they can buy me a 60/40 policy.  If I assume they buy me an 80/20 policy, however, and something catastrophic happens (which is the ONLY reason I would need assistance), I will still likely be unable to pay 20% of that medical bill.  You work in the industry.  What do you estimate the medical bills to be if I get into a car accident and require trauma care, emergency surgery, and a recovery stay?  And then the physical therapy or other extended care that generally follows catastrophic events?

20% or 40% ... I am bankrupt either way, so the government foots the bill.  Now, private insurance gets its money via premiums and the government not only foots the bill for that, but also foots the bill for the costs the insurance company doesn't cover.  As it stands now, the government (all you taxpayers) aren't footing anything for me and won't unless I actually need it.  Soon, you will be footing my insurance bill when I don't need it, and will still have to foot the bill if I need it.  And, as an added bonus, I will be receiving government assistance when I have purposely gone my whole like without it and would like to continue like that if at all possible.  The only winner is private insurance.  I'm going to be on government assistance in order to benefit private insurance ... beautiful.  It just makes me sick is all, so I am pissing and moaning. =(

quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And, btw, your assumption that only a 60/40 policy will be offered is incorrect.

The version I read, and it may have changed again by now, had a 60/40 policy listed.  I was assuming that if the government was footing my bill, they would buy me the cheapest insurance they could and remain compliant.  I am not holding out any hopes that the government is going to buy me an 80/20 policy when they can buy me a 60/40 policy.  If I assume they buy me an 80/20 policy, however, and something catastrophic happens (which is the ONLY reason I would need assistance), I will still likely be unable to pay 20% of that medical bill.  You work in the industry.  What do you estimate the medical bills to be if I get into a car accident and require trauma care, emergency surgery, and a recovery stay?  And then the physical therapy or other extended care that generally follows catastrophic events?

20% or 40% ... I am bankrupt either way, so the government foots the bill.  Now, private insurance gets its money via premiums and the government not only foots the bill for that, but also foots the bill for the costs the insurance company doesn't cover.  As it stands now, the government (all you taxpayers) aren't footing anything for me and won't unless I actually need it.  Soon, you will be footing my insurance bill when I don't need it, and will still have to foot the bill if I need it.  And, as an added bonus, I will be receiving government assistance when I have purposely gone my whole like without it and would like to continue like that if at all possible.  The only winner is private insurance.  I'm going to be on government assistance in order to benefit private insurance ... beautiful.  It just makes me sick is all, so I am pissing and moaning. =(

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

its not 20 or 40... its 100 percent the rest are left holding the bag for. Not only the hospitals, but every insured person who walks through the doors for treatment. Thats the system now... how is it working for those who have insurance? Do you enjoy paying for me, yumme and anyone else who decides they dont need insurance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

I did read it.  Its still H.R.3590, isn't it?

Under

8 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM
9 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS
10 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS.

(b) (a) (3) (G) (ii)

"1 ‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage
2        share of the total allowed costs of benefits
3        provided under the plan or coverage is not
4        less than 60 percent of such costs;"

If insurance covers 60 percent of such costs, that leaves 40 percent. 

So, the taxpayer will be paying my insurance premiums and 40% of my medical bills.  Currently, the taxpayer has had to pay none of my medical expenses.  The one time I needed assistance, I got it from a charity, not the taxpayer. 

If the government pays my premiums for 20 years, that's roughly $93,000 the taxpayer pays for me when I have not needed it at all in the past 20 years.  $93,000 pissed away on me when I can pay my own routine and preventative care.  So, say the government pays this insurance for me and then I get in a car crash and require hospitalization.  I'm hoping you can give me a better idea of what that would cost, but I realize it would depend on the injuries and their treatments.  A quick google on average medical costs after a car accident (after weeding out the damned ambulance chasing lawyer sites) gives me a rough estimate of about $100,000 (but that could be much lower or much higher).  I can't pay $40,000 even after the insurance company pays its $60,000.  So, since I am right at the poverty line, the government (you taxpayers) kicks in and pays the $40,000 in addition to the $93,000 you've already paid for me.  Taxpayers have paid out $133,000.  If I had been uninsured, the government would eat the full $100,000 car crash stay.  Taxpayers have overpaid for me by $33,000 even if I have a car crash and need assistance.  If I never have that car crash, the taxpayers have wasted $133,000 on me when I never even wanted the assistance I was required to take.  If you let me go on my merry way and I never need assistance, taxpayers don't give me a dime.  If you let me go on my merry way and I ever need assistance, taxpayers will pay out that $100,000 for me.  Why make them pay $133,000?  After that car crash, taxpayers will still be paying my insurance premiums, another $93,000 for another 20 years (assuming I don't live past that). 

For every person who cannot afford health insurance, taxpayers will pay it for them for the duration of their lives, $280,000 for 60 years ... plus $40,000 if he has that $100,000 hospital stay (so $320,000).  Not every person will have that car accident.  I don't even think most people will.  The vast majority of people I know have not had that kind of thing happen.  How is this cost effective?

It is not a matter of not knowing what is being presented.  For me, at least, it is a matter of disagreeing with this particular flavor of shit they are feeding me.  I don't want to be forced to go on federal assistance, and I most certainly don't want to be forced to go on government assistance to line the pockets of private insurance companies.  This particular bill is crap.  I've read about 1700 of the 2074 pages of it and I think it is crap.  They should scrap it and start over.  There's a Democratic majority at the moment.  Why can't they do any better than this piece of crap?

quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

I did read it.  Its still H.R.3590, isn't it?

Under

8 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM
9 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS
10 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS.

(b) (a) (3) (G) (ii)

"1 ‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage
2        share of the total allowed costs of benefits
3        provided under the plan or coverage is not
4        less than 60 percent of such costs;"

If insurance covers 60 percent of such costs, that leaves 40 percent. 

So, the taxpayer will be paying my insurance premiums and 40% of my medical bills.  Currently, the taxpayer has had to pay none of my medical expenses.  The one time I needed assistance, I got it from a charity, not the taxpayer. 

If the government pays my premiums for 20 years, that's roughly $93,000 the taxpayer pays for me when I have not needed it at all in the past 20 years.  $93,000 pissed away on me when I can pay my own routine and preventative care.  So, say the government pays this insurance for me and then I get in a car crash and require hospitalization.  I'm hoping you can give me a better idea of what that would cost, but I realize it would depend on the injuries and their treatments.  A quick google on average medical costs after a car accident (after weeding out the damned ambulance chasing lawyer sites) gives me a rough estimate of about $100,000 (but that could be much lower or much higher).  I can't pay $40,000 even after the insurance company pays its $60,000.  So, since I am right at the poverty line, the government (you taxpayers) kicks in and pays the $40,000 in addition to the $93,000 you've already paid for me.  Taxpayers have paid out $133,000.  If I had been uninsured, the government would eat the full $100,000 car crash stay.  Taxpayers have overpaid for me by $33,000 even if I have a car crash and need assistance.  If I never have that car crash, the taxpayers have wasted $133,000 on me when I never even wanted the assistance I was required to take.  If you let me go on my merry way and I never need assistance, taxpayers don't give me a dime.  If you let me go on my merry way and I ever need assistance, taxpayers will pay out that $100,000 for me.  Why make them pay $133,000?  After that car crash, taxpayers will still be paying my insurance premiums, another $93,000 for another 20 years (assuming I don't live past that). 

For every person who cannot afford health insurance, taxpayers will pay it for them for the duration of their lives, $280,000 for 60 years ... plus $40,000 if he has that $100,000 hospital stay (so $320,000).  Not every person will have that car accident.  I don't even think most people will.  The vast majority of people I know have not had that kind of thing happen.  How is this cost effective?

It is not a matter of not knowing what is being presented.  For me, at least, it is a matter of disagreeing with this particular flavor of shit they are feeding me.  I don't want to be forced to go on federal assistance, and I most certainly don't want to be forced to go on government assistance to line the pockets of private insurance companies.  This particular bill is crap.  I've read about 1700 of the 2074 pages of it and I think it is crap.  They should scrap it and start over.  There's a Democratic majority at the moment.  Why can't they do any better than this piece of crap?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

From the bill

(1) LEVELS OF COVERAGE DEFINED.—The lev11
els of coverage described in this subsection are as
12 follows:
13 (A) BRONZE LEVEL.—A plan in the bronze
14 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de15
signed to provide benefits that are actuarially
16 equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial
17 value of the benefits provided under the plan.
18 (B) SILVER LEVEL.—A plan in the silver
19 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de20
signed to provide benefits that are actuarially
21 equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial
22 value of the benefits provided under the plan.
23 (C) GOLD LEVEL.—A plan in the gold level
24 shall provide a level of coverage that is designed
25 to provide benefits that are actuarially equiva

113
O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 lent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of
2 the benefits provided under the plan.
3 (D) PLATINUM LEVEL.—A plan in the
4 platinum level shall provide a level of coverage
5 that is designed to provide benefits that are ac6
tuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full ac7
tuarial value of the benefits provided under the
8 plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

its not 20 or 40... its 100 percent the rest are left holding the bag for. Not only the hospitals, but every insured person who walks through the doors for treatment. Thats the system now... how is it working for those who have insurance? Do you enjoy paying for me, yumme and anyone else who decides they dont need insurance?

Unpaid medical bills accrue as losses to hospitals, labs, etc. (like "Hospital Corporation of America," through which Senator Bill Frist made millions, in spite of whatever losses were incurred because of "those who choose not to be insured") -- not to insurance companies.  Such losses are not rolled over (directly or indirectly) into the premium costs of those who carry insurance.   Covering those losses simply raises the profits of the healthcare industry, on the backs of the middle class.