Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-28 23:32
My problem with Obamacare is that it is a 1000+ page document that very few people have actually read. I get the feeling that most of Congress just voted without reading very much of it...
Ailyene wrote on 2010-10-28 23:33
Quote from Lan;197575:
The amount of debt in the world is greater than the amount of money currently in circulation...since I've taken no economy classes I don't know the outcome of this will be.
At first glance, this sounds like it defies all logic! :T_T: But after thinking about it, I guess I can understand how it can happen.
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-28 23:35
Quote from Spartaaaaa;197600:
My problem with Obamacare is that it is a 1000+ page document that very few people have actually read. I get the feeling that most of Congress just voted without reading very much of it...
I know I would just skim it XD
And choose random pages to bring up in discussion to pretend I read it :D
Zid wrote on 2010-10-29 02:57
I was sort of against it at first, because I remembered how it would affect the salaries of those in the medical field. After reading a bit more down the years, I'm pretty much for it. Especially where I am now, in college and in tedious academic waters.
I agree it's not perfect. It's going to need to be kinked out, in the face of national debt. But something has to be done for those people who can't afford to pay to save themselves.
Hiccup wrote on 2010-10-29 03:31
Can't we be like Europe have higher gas prices but have free healthcare. Cause the extra money added onto gas pays for Health insurance :l
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-29 15:08
Quote from Bieber;197983:
Can't we be like Europe have higher gas prices but have free healthcare. Cause the extra money added onto gas pays for Health insurance :l
I don't know about Europe but gas is a private business here in the united states.
wolfram wrote on 2010-10-29 16:05
OP:
I don't believe some of the statements you have made are 100% true in all cases.
1. Required by law, all emergency rooms have to treat anyone that shows up that is hurt, sick, etc. etc. whether they have insurance or not. Now granted if you don't' have insurance your more likely to just try to stay at home and hope you start feeling better, but the option of going to the emergency room is available by law.
2. Lawfully the insurance companies cannot drop you, if and only if you did not know that you had cancer before switching policies. All answers on a health insurance applications are "warranties." This means that all answer are true according to your best knowledge. If the Health Care Company has already accepted you into its risk-pool and you did not know about your cancer beforehand, they cannot deny you on grounds of pre-existing conditions. Now if you falsely stated on your application that you did not have cancer, but you did, and was accepted, then that is grounds for a pre-exisiting condition exemption. Most likely they will ask for you to go through a health examination if they have any doubt what-so-ever if they suspect anything. And although they do not have direct access to your health records, there are companies out there and keep a record of your medical records for insurance companies to rifle through. If you so happen to develop cancer right after they accept you, SOL for the insurance company.
Right during college I use to work in the insurance business. Selling it, Marketing it, and even Underwriting for it.
The health care plan that you have described with your parents as an example is a classic case of the PPO (Perfered Provider Organization). And Intex is correct, vist the approved doctors unless you want a massive overhead cost before they cover anything.
I agree that America's Health Care Cost has to be reigned in, but I believe there is a better solution then mandating Employee Coverage, a Public Option (which isn't in the bill, just giving it as an example), or covering Pre-exisiting Conditions, and a Tax Fee if you do not carry coverage.
What I envision is moving health care away from the Employers and into the Individual.
How health care cost work now is that it is a 3rd Party Base System, where most families and individuals get health care insurance through their employers or the Federal Government through the various social medical programs (Medicare and SS to name a few). I don't believe tying insurance to employers is a good idea since what happens when you lose your job? Your health care coverage ends, the exceptions is when COBRA kicks in allowing you to stay on the health care plan for 6th months at your expense.
I believe an individual account for a family would suffice, namely called a "mega-HSA". HSA's are Health Saving's Accounts, basically saving accounts that is used to pay for health care cost only. To do this, increase the contribution limit to HSAs from $3000 to $10,000 for an individual, and from $5950 to $20,000 for a family. Anyone—an employer, an individual, etc.—can contribute tax-free to HSAs. HSAs could be coupled with any type of health insurance plan, or no plan at all (i.e., self-insurance). HSA dollars could be used to pay for premiums. Whatever isn’t spent in a given year would continue to grow and build for health care needs in the future. What this would do is lower the premiums drastically. Since the individual is taking more risk upfront, willing to pay more as a deductible, the premiums go down. In turn the individual can use the extra cash and place them within the HSA's for future health needs. If they ever need health care, the HSA will cover all up front cost until the Insurance companies step in. Last note, this account belongs to the individual and and is not tied to employment.
Create an advanceable and refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance premiums. The limit would be $6000 family, and $3000 single. This would not replace the employer exclusion for health insurance, or any other current tax break. Rather, it would simply be a new “yes-and†option alongside these tax systems.
Block grant Medicaid, Medicare, S-CHIP, and Veterans Health to the states the same way the federal government block-granted welfare in the 1990s. Welfare rolls were cut in half, and these programs could use a little of that “laboratories of democracy†magic. If this is too big of a lift, just block granting Medicaid and S-CHIP would be fine. Medicare and Vets can make do with a generous voucher program for recipients to purchase their own care. Vets and Medicare recipients can now choose when and where they would like to get health care, since they are getting the money directly as a voucher, instead of Medicare and Vets Affair being directed towards a certain health care facility that is being paid directly by the Federal Government.
Allow younger workers to save their Medicare FICA tax (about 3 percent of all wages and self-employment profits) in a Medicare Savings Account which would be invested much like the federal employee “Thrift Savings Program.†Upon attaining age 65, these monies would be used to purchase a Medicare annuity for the rest of their lives.
Put a hard cap on what trial lawyers can sue for in medical malpractice cases. The insurance that doctors and hospitals have to pay is driving up the cost of care. The trial lawyers are rent-seeking locusts who feed off of the rest of us. They are a dead-weight cost to health care. Almost as important, they are a key element of the other team.
Allow everyone—individuals, businesses, etc.—to purchase health insurance across state lines. Allow any groups to band together across state lines to purchase health insurance. These inter-state commerce enhancements are critical if we’re to get out from under the Lilliputian benefit mandates that have been imposed at the state level by the disease groups. Currently no-one is allowed to purchase health care insurance from across state lines.
Create “high risk pool†funding at the state level. There’s always going to be a hardcore group of chronically-ill people who won’t be able to qualify for care on their own (even under this ultra-reformed system). They aren’t large—maybe one or two percent of the population at most—but a compassionate society must provide for them. The big-hearted, optimistic solution to this is high risk pools. The states basically set up money that protects the insurance companies against too many losses in such cases. It’s like reinsurance for the outlier patients. The alternative is top-down regulatory solutions like “guaranteed issue†(which requires that no one can ever be turned down for coverage, resulting in system-gaming).
Shisho2k wrote on 2010-11-09 05:47
Quote from spazzyorbit;197518:
Deficit-neutral, and who does it hurt, exactly?
Insurance companies.
Nice signature btw. ;D