RE: health insurance not tied to employment

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

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

Message

dcnovice -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:43:03 PM)
quote: My son makes fun of my television set because it is the old bulky type. It was purchased in 1996. Every so often the sound gets a bit static, cutting in and out. He keeps telling me to get with the times and buy a flat screen or whatever the new "common" thing is. I can't afford it, and while my television has quirks, it still works 99% of the time just fine. Mine's from '92. Still has rabbit ears. [:)]

LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 7:57:59 PM)
Where I am, there would be nothing but snow with rabbit ears. Besides with the whole digital thing, can you even use the rabbit ears?

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 8:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Oh? Why does insurance rates for males higher than females if it's about the car? But, to update the question.... Do you have to carry auto insurance if you don't drive? I'm shocked someone who supposedly has a clue needs an explanation. But feel free to look up something called "risk assessment." It has to do with the primary driver (and owner) of the vehicle and the risk they pose on the road. You might also want to note that it definitively proves who are the safer drivers. So, it's about the driver and not the car? But you said... quote: And no, if you don't drive, you don't have to carry auto insurance, but you are being ridiculous and you know it. Do you think that people who live in New York City but have driver's licenses can't rent cars without purchasing insurance? Are you really that dense? Just because you can't see where I'm going with something doesn't mean I don't know where I'm going with it. As Kermit and Fozzie sang, "getting their is half the fun, come share it with me! Moving right along..."

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 8:03:47 PM)
quote: But...Xboxes....3 TV's....isn't there something to be said for waiting for (building for) a better tomorrow? Isn't there something to be said for....trying/sacrificing? You are assuming those were bought by mom or dad... My son had those things, all purchased by grandparents and uncles. He wore designer clothes, all purchased at good will or outlet malls. I know many people who get a new cell phone as a Christmas present every year. You also neglect the power of layaway, gift cards and good will/salvation army for such "luxuries." Freecycle.org is also a great source for such things as TV's. I helped a girl friend pick up a free leather couch in great condition. Assumptions can bite you in the ass.

njlauren -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 8:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl Private individual health insurance policies have been available for years, but many Americans are unable to afford them. With subsidies beginning in 2014, that will change, at least for those who aren't stuck with employee health insurance. The problem with health insurance being tied to employment is, companies can terminate employees if they or someone on their policy develops a condition that's expensive to treat so they can keep premiums lower. Is it true that people who already have health insurance through work won't be eligible to sign up individually on the exchange? Would dropping employee health insurance and paying the fine make a person eligible to sign up individually on the exchange the following year? How can US citizens make themselves eligible for subsidized individual health insurance on the exchange and get away from employment based health insurance? I'm sure there is something within the HR world that prevents a company from firing an employee simply because they are causing their insurance premiums to rise. I can ask my ex when she gets back from her HR convention (about Obamacare, not surprisingly enough). To whoever wants to answer: If an employer charges an employee for premium costs, is it possible for that employee to get a subsidy for the premium if his/her income is low enough? Most companies with health insurance (least the ones I have worked for) have different employee payments depending on salary, and relatively modest wage workers pay a lot less towards the premium than more well paid ones. I don't know if the subsidies will work towards paying the employee portion of premiums. Employers technically cannot fire an employee who gets sick, though an employer who is self insured (i.e has a company administer a plan the company pays for) has incentive to do so, and they could find myriad excuses to fire someone. Health insurance companies have been doing this and unfortunately I don't think Obamacare addressed it, where they drop people when they get sick with cancer or whatever, claiming the person committed fraud or other bilge.

njlauren -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/30/2013 8:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady 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. Oh? Why does insurance rates for males higher than females if it's about the car? But, to update the question.... Do you have to carry auto insurance if you don't drive? No,you don't, on the other hand, if you don't drive, you aren't at risk of wrecking a car, or hurting yourself or others. The problem with your analogy is that by not carrying health insurance, that person is a risk and a threat to everyone else, and here is why. Ever notice how expensive it is when you go to the hospital? Go in for a bad stomach pain and a dose of antacid and pepsid and about 20 minutes of treatment will cost you 5k......wanna know why? Because the people who 'choose not to carry insurance' when they get sick, show up at emergency rooms and the like, and treating them is expensive as all hell. One of the reasons for 400 dollar tylenol's and 300 dollar band aids is cost shifting, people without insurance are a primary factor, as is cost shifting to make up for how little medicaid and medicare pay. It is why most states require you have at least liability insurance, so if you get into an accident you have insurance to pay for the other person's car and such. Unless you are going to say "no insurance, no treatment until you show me you can pay", that is bogus reasoning, because otherwise it is an uninsured person expecting others to pick up the tab.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (5/1/2013 6:30:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren No,you don't, on the other hand, if you don't drive, you aren't at risk of wrecking a car, or hurting yourself or others. The problem with your analogy is that by not carrying health insurance, that person is a risk and a threat to everyone else, I wasn't the one that brought up the analogy, but completely agree with you that it doesn't really fit the situation. quote: and here is why. Ever notice how expensive it is when you go to the hospital? Go in for a bad stomach pain and a dose of antacid and pepsid and about 20 minutes of treatment will cost you 5k......wanna know why? Because the people who 'choose not to carry insurance' when they get sick, show up at emergency rooms and the like, and treating them is expensive as all hell. One of the reasons for 400 dollar tylenol's and 300 dollar band aids is cost shifting, people without insurance are a primary factor, as is cost shifting to make up for how little medicaid and medicare pay. I surely know it's cost-shifting. And, I don't disagree that plays a part. But, is it the only thing that is driving costs up? I highly doubt it. Look at it this way. If an insurance company and a hospital are owned by the same company, does it matter, to that parent company, if profits come from the insurance side or the hospital side? If the hospital side is running a 20% margin, it can be acceptable for the insurance side to run a 2% margin (purely hypothetical numbers in both cases). The higher the cost of care, the more profitable the hospital will be. Why? Because the insurance company can simply raise premiums to cover the increased costs charged by their hospital. Does an insurance company really care that Tylenol is $400? Only when determining premiums. So, a hospital essentially knows it's going to get paid no matter the charges. As far as the insurance company is concerned, the higher the cost of care, the better, because it's less likely people can afford to pay cash the higher the costs get, giving them a strong customer base. The higher the cost of care is, the more a hospital can write off in charity care, too. A ridiculous and purely hypothetical example will show you that if a Tylenol pill actually costs a hospital $1, writing off $400 as charity care, covers the actual cost of 400 pills. The higher the costs go, the greater the disparity between how much the actual cost of providing the care and the written off costs. That's purely bottom line profits (or increased bonuses). Separating insurance companies from care providers will likely result in large reductions in costs because hospitals won't have the guarantee of over-payment because it will be better for insurance companies if care costs are reduced since they have to survive on their own profit/loss. Hospitals will have to compete more for patients, which should result in lower costs all around. Even though it works in the hospital's favor to set rates as high as possible, the competitive factors will mitigate those increases, to an extent. quote: It is why most states require you have at least liability insurance, so if you get into an accident you have insurance to pay for the other person's car and such. Unless you are going to say "no insurance, no treatment until you show me you can pay", that is bogus reasoning, because otherwise it is an uninsured person expecting others to pick up the tab. It's not bogus reasoning, but I do believe it's wrong to take that reasoning, ethically.

graceadieu -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (5/1/2013 8:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I'm not saying there aren't truly poor, desperate people who need a leg and hand up (and for those, we all should work a bit harder to take care of), but if you walk into many food stamp homes you find kids with X-boxes, 2 flat screen TV's, broadband for all, cell phones for all. And in others, you find a family of 4 sharing a 3 bed/1 bath apartment with two relatives and a roommate, all of them sharing one 18" TV they got from Goodwill and going to the library for their internet. Or two working parents with a kid who, because of government assistance, can afford a tiny one-bedroom in a bad neighborhood. Those are the food stamp families I know.

graceadieu -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (5/1/2013 8:31:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do we have the same ratio of physician's/capita as others whose systems you prefer? Nope. The US ranks pretty low in the developed world for doctor-patient ratio, with only 2.4 per 1000 people, compared with, say, Norway with 4.0, Germany with 3.6, Australia with 3.0, and the UK with 2.7. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/03/02/g3-02-01.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-21-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (5/1/2013 11:37:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. NP's: Looks like just in Australia. PA's: More prevalent than NP's, but not in every industrialized country. PA's/100k (US): 27 NP's/100k (US): 874 Taking info from Graceadieu's link in Post#149, the US has 2.4 Doctor's per 1000. Since the OECD doesn't specify if that NP's and PA's aren't counted in that total, we may have an additional 9.01 providers with some prescriptive authorities/1000 population. This does support Tazzy's assertion that we "don't need more physicians."

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875