health insurance bill

[2manyrocks]

Not true. The ability to obtain health insurance is not solely tied to your employer. Reasonably priced health insurance can be purchased by the individual from a variety of health insurance companies. For example:
https://www.humana-one.com/secured/...LlCjCZAFzEzCjCZBFw5zTw C 7wf z dyww hABfw WBc

Possibly, but not always. Some years ago, I had coverage through my wife's employment, but my employer forced me to participate in my employer's plan because they negotiated a deal that required 100% participation at my employment. (Forced in the sense that if I wanted to keep my job, I had to participate) My employer passed the premium cost onto me and it was substantially more than what I could have obtained through my wife. Then I ran into a similar deal with a different employer a few years later.

 

[dave1949]

What good is health insurance, if you don't have the extra doctors and nurses to take care of the 30,000,000 extra people getting access coverage. Ken Sweet

Not sure that's a valid assumption Ken. Sure, there will eventually be some more people seeking medical care who may not have had means to pay for it before.

But, many of the 30M 'new' patients will come from the group of younger people with few medical issues - for now. They will eventually have babies, sprain their backs, grow kidney stones, get cancers, etc. When they do, they will want medical care they can afford. The only way known to accomplish that is through insurance pools. We have health insurance pools now, except they are full of people needing care and those who don't - yet - are not taking part.

That would be like an auto insurance pool where the majority of the members have all the accidents and claims and the drivers without claims - yet - pay nothing for insurance. That is very similar to how health care insurance works now. And it is one of the reasons why it is expensive for those who are paying. The cost is not being spread across all risk takers equally. Insurance pools cannot work that way and provide reasonable costs at the patient level.

Please note, in an insurance pool, all risk takers will not benefit equally in terms of what they pay versus what they collect. That's just the way it is. You are really lucky if you don't 'collect'.

CatDriver - Bless your Dad's heart he lived to be 80 and didn't need a doctor. He is the exception however, not the rule. My Dad died at the age of 74. He never had many medical issues to speak of until he was diagnosed with a brain tumor and was dead within 6 months. In that 6 months he had brain surgery and several futile rounds of chemo therapy and radiation and a shunt to bypass the brain-blood barrier, plus hospice care at the end.
Dave.

 

[tulenutn2o]

Just read in the news: There is absolutely no provisions in this bill to keep your premiums from being raised at will by the insurance companies. We get fleeced once again.

 

[LostInTheWoods]

Possibly, but not always. Some years ago, I had coverage through my wife's employment, but my employer forced me to participate in my employer's plan because they negotiated a deal that required 100% participation at my employment. (Forced in the sense that if I wanted to keep my job, I had to participate) My employer passed the premium cost onto me and it was substantially more than what I could have obtained through my wife. Then I ran into a similar deal with a different employer a few years later.

Hmmm. Then I stand corrected. I have never personally know of a situation where employees were required (coerced?) to purchase healthcare. I have worked in a number of places in my life and none have ever required participation in a health insurance plan, although most offered it.

I freely admit that doesn't mean it never happens, however.

My main point at the time with that statement was more to demonstrate that we are not necessarily bound to an employer for health insurance which is what it seemed to me canoetrpr was implying.

What is troubling, an one thing that should change, is the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, should you change employers. Some would argue there's a gray area there for "self-inflicted" problems (i.e. smokers with emphysema), but we're already digging a pretty big hole just talking about healthcare in general

Respectfully,

Lost

 

[LostInTheWoods]

Not sure that's a valid assumption Ken. Sure, there will eventually be some more people seeking medical care who may not have had means to pay for it before.

But, many of the 30M 'new' patients will come from the group of younger people with few medical issues - for now.

I agree, to a point. We assume that many of these 30+ million are young and healthy folks. I really don't know what the makeup of this group will be. Let's assume, however, they are generally healthy.

In many areas of the country, there's alreadya provider shortage, especially in primary care. Any increase in the numbers in those areas will be felt.

And, while totally supposition on my part, I am guessing that a large percentage of the "newly insured" will come from the already under-served inner cities and small, rural counties.

And I would venture to say that a certain percentage of people will use the insurance just because they have it..."if I'm paying 500 bucks a month for this, I'm D@^* well gonna' use it!"

Respectfully,

Lost

 

[LostInTheWoods]

Ok - so I would really like to know what your plan is for reducing cost of health insurance without this plan.

I'll answer your question with a question. What's your plan? I certainly don't have all the answers. Never claimed I did. What I do have are serious doubts about what has been included in this plan. Its the job of the president and congress to convince me that this bill is a good thing. It is not my job to formulate alternatives. The OP asked us what we thought of this bill, not what our plans would be.

If anyone really cares what I think would help...
Bobby Jindal’s Bipartisan Health-Care Reform - WSJ.com

This plan is probably not going to reduce the cost anyway.

I totally agree. The last estimate I saw was that this would cost >1 trillion dollars over ten years.

As far as comparing health insurance to tractors it's a bogus and immoral analogy. None of us need a frickin tractor. If someone is dying of a disease and cannot afford quality medical care because they cannot afford that kind of coverage that is immoral in my book.

Analogy...Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Of course none of us are replaceable as machines are replaceable. You completely missed the point of the analogy. The point of my analogy was that sometimes you get what you pay for. No more and no less.

That's it for me, that's my two cents and I'm not here to convince anyone of my position because it's like talking to a brick with guys like you. Will this bill help? I don't know but at least somebody is doing something instead of just sitting on their butts like they have for decades. It's dam shameful is what it is.

Easy bstrom. No one is asking for more than opinions here. The beauty of debate is that you don't have to agree.

Don't give up so easily. Win me over. Convince me that this bill is a good thing. Give me facts, not hope. You say at least "somebody is doing something". But why is that a good thing? Have you researched the contents in this bill? What if this bill ends up giving everybody "something", but the something they get is a poor substitute for what we already have?

I admit, I only have a partial picture. I haven't read the whole thing. I'm still waiting for congress to explain it in a manner that I can understand.

Its just that what I'm seeing so far worries me.

Respectfully,

Lost

 

[dave1949]

I agree, to a point. We assume that many of these 30+ million are young and healthy folks. I really don't know what the makeup of this group will be. Let's assume, however, they are generally healthy.

In many areas of the country, there's alreadya provider shortage, especially in primary care. Any increase in the numbers in those areas will be felt.

And, while totally supposition on my part, I am guessing that a large percentage of the "newly insured" will come from the already under-served inner cities and small, rural counties.

And I would venture to say that a certain percentage of people will use the insurance just because they have it..."if I'm paying 500 bucks a month for this, I'm D@^* well gonna' use it!"

Respectfully,

Lost

Eventually, by some means, our health care system will need to grow into the capacity to serve all the population. For me, that is a reasonable goal. It's hard to claim we have a great health care system if it cannot at least minimally service the whole population. The growth in new patients (as opposed to just newly insured) will almost certainly come from lesser economic areas, I agree.

I see nothing wrong with more mini-clinics and more PA's and nurses providing primary care. CatDriver's example is a good one. He had a relatively simple issue and probably doesn't need to visit an expensive hospital setting with mega bucks worth of diagnostic equipment, operating and care facilities. The primary danger in that situation is we would sometimes be reliant on the knowledge of the care giver to recognize when we do need more serious attention. Most of the time, we would know if we feel poorly or are not healing. As to the $38 fee, a doctor's office probably cannot process an insurance claim for much less than $38 in internal admin costs and overhead - which is a shame.

It's past my bedtime You all have a good night.
Dave.

 

[sweettractors]

As far as insurance pools go, My wife and I had to be in one here in Ky for 3 years. We both in our mid fifties and our premiums were $17,000 per year. That was not the best plan offered either. I don't think insurance pools are going to be anything most people can afford? Ken Sweet

 

[LostInTheWoods]

As far as insurance pools go, My wife and I had to be in one here in Ky for 3 years. We both in our mid fifties and our premiums were $17,000 per year. That was not the best plan offered either. I don't think insurance pools are going to be anything most people can afford? Ken Sweet

Ken,

I think there will be a sliding scale. The less you make, the less it will cost.

 

[dmccarty]

Me too and you are correct with the second quote. May I add the same applies to a good auto mechanic.

And keeping the car mechanic is true too. We have had two Volvo's over the years. One was a 240D station wagon which we sold to my FIL. NEVER should have sold that car. :laughing: He still has it and it just keeps going and going and going. The AC is gone. The interior is falling apart. But the care still goes from A to B. We bought another Volvo wagon maybe a V70. Not so good. The FIL bought it and likes it I think because we sunk a small fortune in the car to fix it up. Keeping the Cat working and passing emissions tests was a PITA.....

When we lived in the city the car mechanic that worked on the Volvo's was in walking distance of the house. As was the GREAT kids doctors. See I got the conversation back on topic! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

The cars and the kids got taken 50 miles round trip to get fixed. The mechanic was great. They even had loaners cars for us to use. Volvo of course and 240's with over 300K on them. Much more than 300K but know body knew how many miles because the odometer was broke.

Keep the good car and people mechanics. Course that is also true of vets. And the awful truth is that we have had far better vets over the years than people doctors. I can only think of one bad vet and that was when I was a little kid.

Later,
Dan