RE: health insurance not tied to employment (Full Version)

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



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 9:30:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

When did I ever claim that zero regulation was the best way to go about things? I'd love for you to show me one example where I specifically stated that. Hell, doesn't even need to be limited to the health care industry.

Your sig line says "Less government" yet here you are spouting the need for more government because you dont like the way things are being done.


So, less is now none? I'm still waiting for you to show me one example as outlined above.

quote:

quote:

Nope. I wasn't paying attention to it, either. I was more interested in passing my college classes and getting laid.

And you havent until the ACA was passed.. and now you are pissing mad because you might actually have to pay for something instead of hoping on a wing and a prayer that you wont need it.
Thats really gotta suck for you.


Not true. I started paying some attention about 2004 and that kept increasing until Spring 2008 when Bush bailed out Bear Stearns. That was the eye-opening event for me.

quote:

quote:

How? Insurance companies are charged more because they can be. It's damn near a scam. Insurance companies negotiate a lower cost with the providers based on number of covered people. One insurance company might not have the leverage to get the same discount, or might not simply because the provider is owned by their competitor. My costs aren't being rolled into anyone else's costs. But, nice try.

lol... do you honestly think that providers and hospitals have not figured your cost savings into their budgets and added that to the insurance claims?
And people call me naive.
Ultimately the cost to underwrite the uninsured is passed on to insurance companies and insured patients -- who can end up paying up to 10 times as much as cash-pay patients do for the same procedure.
They now own up to sliding the uninsured charge to insurance companies. lol... its funny how many people believe they dont with cash patients. No way are they going to lose money if they can help it.


Yawn. Wake me up when you post something worth reading... zzzz




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 11:45:09 PM)

quote:

Not true. I started paying some attention about 2004 and that kept increasing until Spring 2008 when Bush bailed out Bear Stearns. That was the eye-opening event for me.


Wtf does that have to do with health care?




LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 1:12:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

So, having more students to pay the costs of the building maintenance, the professor, and all the other non-education staff isn't going to lower the cost of going to school for a student? Must be that new math that's all the rage. My "old school" math tells me otherwise.

Accreditation for medical schools is handled by how many agencies? How much does it cost for accreditation?

What do they call the worst student at Rutgers that graduated from medical school, and what do they call the best student graduating from medical school at Seton Hall (taking the assumption that both have medical schools)? Or, change Rutgers to University of Toledo (which does have a medical school) and Seton Hall to Harvard. What are those people called?


Ok, so the fact that you switched it to medical school shows a bit of a reading comprehension issues, but whatever.

The fact is that people have been willing to pay more to go to those schools with a lower student/instructor ratio because the quality of education is better. Of course you wouldn't have learned that in your "old math" class because it isn't a math issue. Considering both Seton Hall and Rutgers are two top notch schools and STILL there would be a huge difference in employment opportunities upon completion at either for undergrad, I won't even get into what the difference would be at the graduate studies level, which is what law school (or medical school) is.

So do you honestly think that lowering the quality of education, especially for doctors, because they are both called "doctor" afterward is going to help with a health care crisis, or is it possible that the problem would increase with such lower standards.

quote:


quote:

You pay $42 a visit to your doctor? It's really no wonder you don't really grasp the reality of the situation. My private physician costs me $95 a visit. Do I believe he is a better doctor than someone in my area who charges $42 a visit? Yes, actually I do. The Medicaid physicians, by the way, get paid about $25 dollars a visit.


I'm not seeing the point you are making there. Is your doctor visit more expensive because it's a specialist vs. mine being a GP? I actually like my physician a lot. He has never done wrong by me.


My point is that the cost YOU are paying for a doctor's visit is less typical than the cost I pay for a doctor's appointment. The reality that you don't seem to understand that the cost outside your little corner of the world are significantly different (by more than twice the amount) is indicative of your inability to understand the full thrust of the issue.

quote:


I do consider myself lucky to be a basically healthy person. And, there is insurance available to people to help them lower their medical costs.


So you either approve of insurance or you don't. Make up your mind.

quote:



I do have an issue with mandated insurance purchasing. I do believe it's my right to decide what I purchase and what I don't purchase. And, it's my responsibility to deal with the consequences of those choices.


Except that in case of such catastrophic medical event, you can claim that you will absorb all the costs of that event out of pocket, but the reality is that you won't. You will, of course, seek to reduce your costs in any way possible, making YOU a drain on the system.

quote:


quote:

It's really easy to stomp your feet and say you don't like a program, but when you show over and over again that you really don't understand the implications facing the current system, you aren't really making much of a point.


What implications do I not understand?



Well, there's a couple of problems here. Regardless of your incessant need to claim that tazzy can't seem to understand what you are saying, yet you have to keep repeating yourself for more than just her (indicating your communication style could use some work), you don't appear to grasp the costs on a national level, nor anything else really.

I mean correspondence school tends to be less expensive than attending a physical university. How long before you try to claim that since the "title" you get at the end is the same at either, go for the correspondence school.

Which incidentally, there are nursing programs available through correspondence courses, as well as phlebotomy. Perhaps you are ok with a nurse who got her degree in the mail or someone drawing your blood that was taught out of a book without practical experience, but I'm not. So I guess, you get the benefit of my insisting on someone with a decent education.




DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 6:27:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, having more students to pay the costs of the building maintenance, the professor, and all the other non-education staff isn't going to lower the cost of going to school for a student? Must be that new math that's all the rage. My "old school" math tells me otherwise.
Accreditation for medical schools is handled by how many agencies? How much does it cost for accreditation?
What do they call the worst student at Rutgers that graduated from medical school, and what do they call the best student graduating from medical school at Seton Hall (taking the assumption that both have medical schools)? Or, change Rutgers to University of Toledo (which does have a medical school) and Seton Hall to Harvard. What are those people called?

Ok, so the fact that you switched it to medical school shows a bit of a reading comprehension issues, but whatever.


Isn't this about doctors and medical stuff? I surely wonder why I changed it to medical school...

quote:

The fact is that people have been willing to pay more to go to those schools with a lower student/instructor ratio because the quality of education is better. Of course you wouldn't have learned that in your "old math" class because it isn't a math issue. Considering both Seton Hall and Rutgers are two top notch schools and STILL there would be a huge difference in employment opportunities upon completion at either for undergrad, I won't even get into what the difference would be at the graduate studies level, which is what law school (or medical school) is.
So do you honestly think that lowering the quality of education, especially for doctors, because they are both called "doctor" afterward is going to help with a health care crisis, or is it possible that the problem would increase with such lower standards.


To be honest, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about regarding lowering the quality of education. Where did I recommend that?

And, I do believe that we are going to need more physicians in the very near future. But, part of having more physicians would mean that supply is rising. If we don't have more physicians while we have more demand for physician services, what do you think prices are going to do?

And, how can you not see that more students per class means a lower per pupil cost, which is very real math?

quote:

quote:

quote:

You pay $42 a visit to your doctor? It's really no wonder you don't really grasp the reality of the situation. My private physician costs me $95 a visit. Do I believe he is a better doctor than someone in my area who charges $42 a visit? Yes, actually I do. The Medicaid physicians, by the way, get paid about $25 dollars a visit.

I'm not seeing the point you are making there. Is your doctor visit more expensive because it's a specialist vs. mine being a GP? I actually like my physician a lot. He has never done wrong by me.

My point is that the cost YOU are paying for a doctor's visit is less typical than the cost I pay for a doctor's appointment. The reality that you don't seem to understand that the cost outside your little corner of the world are significantly different (by more than twice the amount) is indicative of your inability to understand the full thrust of the issue.


I see now. You also must realize that we aren't seeing physicians for the same purposes (in specifics; obviously, we are in general), so that may have something to do with the cost disparity, no? What would happen for you if your costs associated with doctor visits, out of pocket and negotiated insurance charge (assuming you have insurance), were to go down?

quote:

quote:

I do consider myself lucky to be a basically healthy person. And, there is insurance available to people to help them lower their medical costs.

So you either approve of insurance or you don't. Make up your mind.


My mind is made up. Sorry you can't follow basic logic.

quote:

quote:

I do have an issue with mandated insurance purchasing. I do believe it's my right to decide what I purchase and what I don't purchase. And, it's my responsibility to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Except that in case of such catastrophic medical event, you can claim that you will absorb all the costs of that event out of pocket, but the reality is that you won't. You will, of course, seek to reduce your costs in any way possible, making YOU a drain on the system.


I see. So, better to get it out of me now, and have it covered later? Interesting take. What kind of drain on the system would I be if the cost of each medical procedure was lower?

quote:

quote:

quote:

It's really easy to stomp your feet and say you don't like a program, but when you show over and over again that you really don't understand the implications facing the current system, you aren't really making much of a point.

What implications do I not understand?

Well, there's a couple of problems here. Regardless of your incessant need to claim that tazzy can't seem to understand what you are saying, yet you have to keep repeating yourself for more than just her (indicating your communication style could use some work), you don't appear to grasp the costs on a national level, nor anything else really.
I mean correspondence school tends to be less expensive than attending a physical university. How long before you try to claim that since the "title" you get at the end is the same at either, go for the correspondence school.
Which incidentally, there are nursing programs available through correspondence courses, as well as phlebotomy. Perhaps you are ok with a nurse who got her degree in the mail or someone drawing your blood that was taught out of a book without practical experience, but I'm not. So I guess, you get the benefit of my insisting on someone with a decent education.


Are the "distance learning" programs accredited by a reputable accrediting body? I would be surprised how a distance learning program gained accreditation for a program that is as hands-on as phlebotomy and nursing. Have you checked into each program of your physician(s) and his/her(their) nursing staff?








LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:20:48 AM)

It is a long undisputed fact that the quality of education and the number of students in the class are directly correlated. See if you can figure out the math on that and then get back to me.

Do you know the difference between regional and national accreditation? Do you know which is better? I'm sure you would be surprised that they were accredited, but I'm not the least bit surprised that you are surprised.

I follow basic logic quite well, and when I see some from you, I will surely be able to follow it.

Being forced to carry medical insurance is no different than being forced to carry auto insurance, although I've a feeling you are opposed to that as well.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:34:42 AM)

quote:

And, I do believe that we are going to need more physicians in the very near future. But, part of having more physicians would mean that supply is rising. If we don't have more physicians while we have more demand for physician services, what do you think prices are going to do


We dont need more physicians.





tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:40:08 AM)

He says he has a degree in PT... if I remember correctly, a PhD? He should be well aware of CAPTE, not to mention Joint Commission, at the very least.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:41:23 AM)

Still no answer to what Bear Stearns has to do with health care?




DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 9:23:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Being forced to carry medical insurance is no different than being forced to carry auto insurance, although I've a feeling you are opposed to that as well.


And, here it is. Where is it a requirement that a person has to have auto insurance, simply for being alive?

Am I against auto insurance? No. I'm not against health insurance, life insurance or property insurances. Am I against being mandated to purchase them? Yes. Would I carry it if it wasn't mandatory? As long as I could afford it, yes.

I'm also against being forced to buckle up, too. It's not that I don't think seat belts are successful safety devices. It's also not that I don't use them (also I wouldn't drive unless my front seat passenger was buckled up before the law made that mandatory). None of that shit matters. What matters, to me, is that I have the free choice to do it or not, and I accept responsibility for my actions.





DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 9:27:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

And, I do believe that we are going to need more physicians in the very near future. But, part of having more physicians would mean that supply is rising. If we don't have more physicians while we have more demand for physician services, what do you think prices are going to do

We dont need more physicians.


Do we have the same ratio of physician's/capita as others whose systems you prefer?

quote:

He says he has a degree in PT... if I remember correctly, a PhD? He should be well aware of CAPTE, not to mention Joint Commission, at the very least.


Nope. Never said that. I have a BS in Exercise Science (I was in pre-PT studies) and completed most of the work for a MS in Clinical Kinesiology. So, no. No degree in PT and certainly not a PhD. I don't have the focus for that.

quote:

Still no answer to what Bear Stearns has to do with health care?


Never said it did.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 9:35:17 AM)

quote:

Do we have the same ratio of physician's/capita as others whose systems you prefer?


We have the benefit of PA's to assist physicians as well as NP's who can work almost independently of physicians... or did you forget those?

quote:

Never said it did.


Then why did you bring it up? Or was that your first inkling that the economy was taking a hit? Its funny how many people ignored the ills of our society until it hits their wallets.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 9:37:47 AM)

quote:

I'm also against being forced to buckle up, too. It's not that I don't think seat belts are successful safety devices. It's also not that I don't use them (also I wouldn't drive unless my front seat passenger was buckled up before the law made that mandatory). None of that shit matters. What matters, to me, is that I have the free choice to do it or not, and I accept responsibility for my actions.


You do not have the choice to cost others more money.

You do not have the free choice to decide who in your car lives or dies because you dont like seat belts.

If we take your belief system at heart, lets get rid of drunk driving laws, people should be able to choose to drink and drive, irregardless of who they hurt.




DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:05:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Do we have the same ratio of physician's/capita as others whose systems you prefer?

We have the benefit of PA's to assist physicians as well as NP's who can work almost independently of physicians... or did you forget those?


Since my Aunt is one, and I have family that are nurses (one just retired after 40+ years), including one that considering more schooling to become an NP, I certainly have not forgotten about those. Do other countries not have NP's/PA's? If you get a chance to look that up, feel free. Well, if you don't already know, that is. If not, I'll get to it later. I'm running late today.

quote:

quote:

Never said it did.

Then why did you bring it up? Or was that your first inkling that the economy was taking a hit? Its funny how many people ignored the ills of our society until it hits their wallets.


Why did I bring it up? I brought it up to show give you dated examples of when I started to pay attention to politics, as a whole.
That was in response to challenging my support/non-support of HCA.




DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:14:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

I'm also against being forced to buckle up, too. It's not that I don't think seat belts are successful safety devices. It's also not that I don't use them (also I wouldn't drive unless my front seat passenger was buckled up before the law made that mandatory). None of that shit matters. What matters, to me, is that I have the free choice to do it or not, and I accept responsibility for my actions.

You do not have the choice to cost others more money.
You do not have the free choice to decide who in your car lives or dies because you dont like seat belts.
If we take your belief system at heart, lets get rid of drunk driving laws, people should be able to choose to drink and drive, irregardless of who they hurt.


Who said I don't like seat belts? I choose to wear them. I have always chosen to wear them (always as a kid; only in the front seat as an adult). I have never prevented anyone from wearing a seat belt if they so choose. I will not drive if a person isn't buckled up as a front-seat passenger in my vehicle (unless that person has a disability preventing him/her from buckling up).

Drunk driving laws penalize people who choose to drink and drive. Drunk driving laws, unless caught in a random sweep, don't have any effect on anyone that isn't caught doing something else illegal. If you aren't breaking any other motor vehicle law, you won't be pulled over for driving drunk, unless they see you leaving a bar, or they are doing a random sweep.

Do you have to carry auto insurance for your kids, if you don't drive?




DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:16:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

I'm also against being forced to buckle up, too. It's not that I don't think seat belts are successful safety devices. It's also not that I don't use them (also I wouldn't drive unless my front seat passenger was buckled up before the law made that mandatory). None of that shit matters. What matters, to me, is that I have the free choice to do it or not, and I accept responsibility for my actions.

You do not have the choice to cost others more money.


How have I cost others more money in this regard?

Now, if I don't have the choice to cost others more money, how can others have the choice to cost other people more money (not in this regard)? Some people have chosen to not apply themselves. Those people could certainly be making more money, paying more taxes, etc., right? So, aren't they choosing to cost other people more?




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:35:17 AM)

quote:

Why did I bring it up? I brought it up to show give you dated examples of when I started to pay attention to politics, as a whole.
That was in response to challenging my support/non-support of HCA.


So nothing concerned you about health care in this country until the ACA, Got it.




LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:35:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Being forced to carry medical insurance is no different than being forced to carry auto insurance, although I've a feeling you are opposed to that as well.


And, here it is. Where is it a requirement that a person has to have auto insurance, simply for being alive?

Am I against auto insurance? No. I'm not against health insurance, life insurance or property insurances. Am I against being mandated to purchase them? Yes. Would I carry it if it wasn't mandatory? As long as I could afford it, yes.



Ah, so you simply want to be able to do what you choose and accept the consequences when you make a mess of things.

Catastrophic illness, it's your fault you have no insurance, and you should be charged the full amount because it was your choice (no discount for being uninsured, you don't deserve it, since it was your choice).

No life insurance? That's ok, your next of kin is stuck with the bill when you die and since you are dead, it isn't your problem anyway.

You don't want to insure your property? No problem. When your house burns down or a sink hole sucks it up, no big deal, you made the choice, so now you can be out on the streets. Of course, your mortgage company is not likely to be thrilled that you didn't protect your property and they lost their investment entirely, but hey, your choice, you will just keep paying the mortgage.

No auto insurance? Yea, the law mandates it. It is there so that when you cause an accident, the insurance is there to protect the car you hit.

quote:


Do you have to carry auto insurance for your kids, if you don't drive?


You insure the CAR, not the driver.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:40:54 AM)

quote:

Who said I don't like seat belts? I choose to wear them. I have always chosen to wear them (always as a kid; only in the front seat as an adult). I have never prevented anyone from wearing a seat belt if they so choose. I will not drive if a person isn't buckled up as a front-seat passenger in my vehicle (unless that person has a disability preventing him/her from buckling up).


So you have no problem with buckling, just with telling people they have too.

quote:

Drunk driving laws penalize people who choose to drink and drive. Drunk driving laws, unless caught in a random sweep, don't have any effect on anyone that isn't caught doing something else illegal. If you aren't breaking any other motor vehicle law, you won't be pulled over for driving drunk, unless they see you leaving a bar, or they are doing a random sweep.


Except those killed by a drunk driver who hits and runs. Property damage in the middle of the night by someone who swipes a car and keeps in going. Lost of income for a business that a drunk driver caused by slamming into the front door of the business, closing that business for a week.

quote:

Do you have to carry auto insurance for your kids, if you don't drive?


Anyone who has access to a vehicle and can drive it should have auto insurance.

Anyone who has will ever need health care should also. Unless you can point to someone who will never need access to health care.




tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:42:56 AM)

quote:

How have I cost others more money in this regard?

Now, if I don't have the choice to cost others more money, how can others have the choice to cost other people more money (not in this regard)? Some people have chosen to not apply themselves. Those people could certainly be making more money, paying more taxes, etc., right? So, aren't they choosing to cost other people more?


Costing people more money in that without insurance, a surgery, a chronic illness, a serious illness, will require you to seek health care... without insurance.

As far as people not applying themselves.... you have yet to prove that. You are assuming they have not.




LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 10:46:47 AM)

But that is the standard "argument" people have against the poor/those on assistance. They don't apply themselves, they are lazy, they would rather "rip off" the system, they want the taxpayers to support them and their decisions.

Needless to say, 99.999% of these people know very little about how the system of assistance works and this is no different.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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