Is the War on women an organized effort?

[redblack]

dyn99:

Going back to insurance, I have filed plenty of claims on my auto policies without issue. If you are having issues filing claims, find another insurer. Pay more for non-discount insurance. That’s what markets are here for. You have all the choice in the world.

i’ve been a customer of the same national insurance company since i got my first driver’s license. when i got married, my wife and i compared premiums and switched to my carrier. now they insure my house. no problem with rates, i can assure you. (my wife and i don’t even have a parking ticket between us.)

but in that time, i’ve paid them enough to buy a car or two. for what? here’s what:

my last claim was in 2003, when i got t-boned in the dark by a speeding driver with no lights on and who ran from the scene. it was raining. i called 911, but no cops showed up. no injuries on our part (except for my pants, of course.) i later filed a report over the phone.

did [big insurance company] take my word for it? no. investigations, adjusters, actuaries, skid mark lengths, police reports, paint forensics, blah blah blah.

they were trying to catch the other driver. why? because they don’t like to pay. and they do everything they can not to.

it’s that simple.

In terms of health insurance, you don’t have a single, national marketplace where insurers can compete across state lines currently. It’s so tightly regulated that health insurers are limited to where then can write policies.

you know, that reminds me of what has happened to our banking institutions. and you know what the big players did? they either crushed or bought the little players. they got big enough to buy lobbyists, congresspeople, and legislation. even presidents.

where’s that magic competition that’s supposed to bring us lower fees and higher interest on savings?

instead, here’s what we have: massive ad campaigns. exorbitant interest rates. excessive fees. don’t pay interest on savings for beans. buy toxic assets so they can avoid taxation. (see BoA and merrill lynch.) “now let’s get into securities!” “now let’s sell mortgages!” “now let’s compete on a global scale!” even after they crashed, burned, and were bailed out by taxpayers, they’re still doing the same things.

what makes you think deregulated insurance companies will behave any differently?

If you create a single, national marketplace, but still allow states to pass reasonable regulations (like the treble damages law which I voted for), then you would have many more players, creating efficiencies and driving down prices.

i really don’t see how a state suing a national company is going to work.

“it’s legal in montana. but not in georgia. damages are double there.”

“great! let’s have the venue shifted to montana.”

you’re creating an unenforceable legal nightmare.

You’re clearly missing where I suggested we create a refundable income tax credit to give everyone the same purchasing power to buy health insurance across the country. This means that EVERYONE would get $6000/year (for an individual) or $12000/year (for a family) to buy their own insurance. Employers needn’t be the financially responsible party for their employees health.

this is a horrible idea. you’re collecting taxes, then distributing them to the population at large, who then – by mandate – give that money directly to big insurance companies. an unnecessarily complicated and government-sponsored gift to them. no change for us.

no, thanks.

hell, i disagree with the child tax credit, and people are free to do whatever they please with that money.

or why not take your tax credit and let taxpayers give it directly to their doctors? health care is cheaper without insurance, anyway. (but it’s still effing expensive.)

why not take payroll taxes, put them in a government-run insurance pool, and cover everyone? the government would cover private medical practice with that money the same way insurance does now. it would look exactly like the system we have now, except with less paperwork. no more premiums. no more health care costs borne by employers. no more insurance, except for elective procedures.

Also, insurance companies are not necessarily for-profit. Most of the health insurance policies written in this state are written by 3 non-profits currently – Group Health, Regence, and Premera. They can compete against for-profit insurers and if the government wants to create its own insurance plan, then it can compete too, as long as it isn’t subsidized by taxpayers. The more competition the better.

currently, that’s illegal. and per ACA, the government is not allowed to “compete” until 2015 or so. and then it’s voluntary and state-by-state.

then, and only then, will you see insurance companies lower rates. because they can’t compete with a government overhead of 2 or 3%, while theirs is at 20% just to maintain healthy profits.

my prediction is that once states set up their own health insurance exchanges you’ll see people – and employers! – leaving the big insurers in droves.

In terms of tort reform, that is market manipulation in my opinion as well. There are very few reasons in my opinion that the government should limit anyone’s liability, as it encourages risks that should not otherwise be taken.

well, in my opinion, any doctor who doesn’t take an unnecessary risk simply because he might get caught and sued is violating the hippocratic oath.

Share This

[JoB]

redblack..

“my prediction is that once states set up their own health insurance exchanges you’ll see people – and employers! – leaving the big insurers in droves.”

correct me if i am wrong

but my understanding was that if you qualify for any health insurance through an employer

you would not qualify for the state pool

Share This

[redblack]

it’s been a while since i read the ACA, jo, but i think employers can seek coverage for their employees through the exchanges.

as can the self-employed.

not sure what happens with my cadillac union benefits. but i’ll bet that whatever the union does, it will be an effort to take costs off of the employers. so they’ll seek the cheapest, best coverage.

Share This

[JoB]

redblack..

i think smal employers can seek coverage through the exchanges..

but i am pretty sure larger employers are still required to offer some form of insurance to their employees and that any employee offered insurance doesn’t qualify for the exchange..

i think Obamacare needs to be re-done

only this time we include insurance companies only if there is a mandate for basic coverage at no profit…

and basic coverage needs to cover preventative care

Share This

[dyn99]

Alright, Redblack. Let’s make a compromise. I’ll play the right and you play the left.

I’ll give you your single-payer system as the default system that’s funded by a flat (payroll-type) tax on everyone, as long as health insurance becomes a taxable benefit if provided by companies taxed at the ordinary income tax rate.

By default, all Americans get it, it will be run by the Federal Government and cover necessary services such as preventative care, maternity, birth control, etc. But it won’t cover alternative medicine or other therapies that may be medically beneficial. And it’s going to operate at a $0 deductible, but 75/25% coinsurance until you reach $2500 out of pocket for an individual and $5000 for a family to make the cost reasonable.

But I want the right to opt out. And so does every other conservative. I want the government to give me the exact same amount of dollars and distribute it into an HSA for me (and my family) and I can go spend the money on an alternative private insurance policy if I so choose, with any coverage level I desire, as long as it provides catastrophic coverage so we don’t have people going bankrupt by choosing the private option.

And I want to be able to contribute an additional $5000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family to my HSA tax free, to be used under normal HSA rules.

Fair? Then you get the public/private competition, and if the government really does a better job, then everyone will choose the government plan. If the private sector does a better job, then everyone will opt out of the government plan and choose a private plan that suits them better.

I’ll agree to it if you do. But your “cadillac” union plan becomes taxable, so you have to lose it for the good of the country.

Deal?

Share This

[kootchman]

I’ll go one better… repeal Davis Bacon so when government construction work goes on… I am not paying for that Cadillac plan, taxed or not.. And the government plan cannot borrow or contribute more to the deficit… it must be self sustaining by those premiums. Just like the private carriers. If it’s good enough for us… then all federal, state, and county employees now riding on Sebelius waivers are in the pool too. No IOU’s….no trust funds, no extended budget projections and CBO “assumptions”… you are solvent every quarter and if not, raise the taxes. We use standard accounting practices. Not political hocus pocus and chicanery. I’m in. One conservative for the single payer option. Those might have been included..if we weren’t locked out of the room while Pelosi was trading and wheeling and dealing and handing our expemptions to buy the votes she needed…. that’s why Obamacare is going to be repealed.

Share This

[dyn99]

Okay, Kootch. Every state, federal and local government employee gets the plan (no more cadillac plans for government employees) but individually, they can opt out too, just not collectively.

And I agree, no deficits, no accounting tricks, a flat tax on all forms of income, including capital gains and dividends, and any other employer-provided health benefits become taxable.

Redblack, you in? Or are you too busy drinking green beer?

Share This

[dyn99]

Oh…and this plan will replace Medicare too…same rules/terms/benefits. But I can opt out of that as well.

Share This

[kootchman]

I’m all in. Yep no union bargaining opt outs… individual choices. No means testing… but dyn99…. as soon as their another goodie to pass out… and they don’t have the money…. it will go the way of Ss and Medicare… another stream of revenue to latch on to and obligations passed along to the next generation. Liberals cannot live in their Utopia until we are fiscally destitute. Would you trust Pelosi or Obama with a 1.5 trillion dollar revenue stream? Hell we’d have plantinum hulled aircraft carriers with a Republican prez I am with ya in theory… but it all depends on the how the bill is crafted. The only way would be a constitutional amendment assuring full funding. Like Bohner said about sequetration… ” if congress did it , we can undo it”…should make all the ladies happy, should make the church happy….

Share This

[JanS]

now, dyn..a question. What about those people who have already contributed to Medicare? They just lose it? Too bad, so sad? Or will there be grandfathering in your plan?

Share This

[dyn99]

We’ve all contributed to Medicare, so we would all “lose” our contributions, but given that we would all have health coverage under this new plan, simply by being Americans, so Medicare and Medicaid would be rendered effectively useless. But we’d all have this new plan, so it wouldn’t matter.

Share This

[JanS]

I recently received Medicare (before retirement) through a specially funded program for those with kidney disease. It pays for the dialysis that I receive 3X a week, the $8000 shot I receive once a week. Yes, I’m 65, but retirement age for me is 66. I am thankful that I have it, and thankful that it will pay for a transplant if I get one. It is not all it’s cracked up to be at times, but I simply am thankful for what I do have. Don’t be throwing a monkey wrench into my way too complicated life right now :)

But at least you’re coming up with ideas, unlike some who post who really have no clue and no solutions.

Share This

[JanS]

Oh, and as a licensed healthcare practitioner in the state of WA (massage therapist), I’m none too crazy about my services not being covered by your insurance plan/idea.

Share This

[kootchman]

See Jan… if I could take an opt out….and keep my private insurance as Obama promised…. I have physical therapy covered under private insurance. I would be opting out.

Share This

[JoB]

Yo Kootch..

the first lawsuit has been filed by an INDIVIDUAL demanding exemption from the mandate for employers to provide birth control as part of an insurance plan.

of course, it was funded by the Catholic Church…

“http://www.care2.com/causes/first-lawsuit-by-private-employer-filed-over-birth-control-mandate.html”

this was never about religious rights

this was always about denying women birth control

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99..

you must be a fan of the CEO of Whole Foods..

although i will admit, your plan is slightly better than his..

but it still limits preventative care

which is the least expensive way of delivering health care

and your HSA opt out dilutes the risk pool.. also increasing taxpayer costs..

Why are you wasting taxpayer dollars?

And why are you trying to diminish federal revenue by diverting tax dollars into privately funded HSA accounts?

It’s always good to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99..

by the way..

how do you think people who have paid into medicare their entire lives and are living on social security are going to come up with that first $2500.

it may seem like small change to you..

but to people on limited incomes it’s an impossibility.

Share This

[dyn99]

They’re gonna have to figure it out. It is a reasonable contribution by an individual, and everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

Medicare still requires premium payments by those who use it, so this wouldn’t be that much more than they would already pay for Medicare premiums.

I just read the Whole Foods CEO’s opinion article in the WSJ on health care and I agree with him almost entirely. But…I don’t think we will ever get a congress and President willing to take that bold of a step. Nor one conservative enough to enact that kind of reform.

So this is the compromise. I just want to know if everyone will agree to it. Or at least a majority.

Given that you guarantee medical providers get paid at least 75% for covered services, it should largely eliminate the need to wait until something is critical to get care. And since everyone has some skin in the game, you’ll want to take your sick kid with the nasty cold to your primary care doctor rather than waiting for the ER, where the costs are far higher.

And JoB, why do you say it doesnt pay for preventative care? If it does reduce costs, then the plan would most certainly cover a reasonable amount of preventative services. Since the government is on the hook for a large portion of people’s health care costs, whatever it can do to drive down costs should be a given, as long as it doesn’t violate their rights.

One last thing – health care providers would have to provide a written quote for their fees before service (except emergency). That way people know how much things actually cost, and can take action to reduce costs.

That way the system is transparent and you’ll always know what you have to pay.

Deal?

Share This

[dyn99]

The HSA opt out still requires a minimum of a catastrophic plan provided by a private carrier. So no real risk of uncompensated care. Risk pool is simply spread across private and the single public plans.

I would personally get a high deductible HSA plan for my family, and pay out of my HSA account for most services. Say a $5000 deductible plan and then would use the premium savings to pay for alternative medicine like massage and acupuncture which I find very helpful.

And my HSA that I currently have does also cover preventative services not subject to the deductible…FYI.

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99

“They’re gonna have to figure it out. It is a reasonable contribution by an individual, and everyone needs to have some skin in the game.”

you are out of touch. Do you know what minimum social security and/or minimum social security disability are?

That $600 to $800 a month doesn’t stretch far..

let’s say for the ease of figuring that they get $1000/mo ..

which btw would be like hitting the jackpot for most of the disabled people i know…

that $2500 is at least two and a half month’s income.

i would say that is some skin…

If everyone has to have some skin in the game

don’t you think it should be an equal patch?

would you be willing to pay 20% or more of your income as a deductible?

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99

“And JoB, why do you say it doesnt pay for preventative care? “

let’s see.

if you can’t afford the full cost of preventative care

do you really think you are going to be able to spring for 75%

All a 75% deductible will do is encourage people not to get preventative health care

which throws the financial burden of medical costs to catastrophic care…

you know.. when you can’t avoid going to the doctor..

which increases total costs exponentially.

It’s the way we provide medical care for the indigent now..

and the costs of doing so are reflected in your insurance premiums..

you’re a smart guy..

why on earth do you want to pay more for less?

Share This

[dyn99]

Jo- its not a deductible. It’s coinsurance. They pay .25 for each dollar they spend. The government pays .75.

What does Medicaid cover now for people that make less than $12,000/year? Medicare?

I still think they should have to have some contribution. But I am open to some sort of subsidy for people in extreme poverty like you mention. I think most other conservatives would be too…at least if they have a heart.

Share This

[dyn99]

You’re also missing the mark on preventative care. The individual has to pay 25% of the cost. The government pays 75%.

That means an individual would pay something like $25-$35 for a routine doctor visit out of pocket. An ER visit, alternatively would cost them $100-$200.

Which would you choose if those were your two choices?

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99

ROFLOL…

“One last thing – health care providers would have to provide a written quote for their fees before service (except emergency). That way people know how much things actually cost, and can take action to reduce costs.”

right…

when hubby’s retina was detached last year he would have signed off regardless of the cost to avoid losing his eye…

and when my hernia threatened to rupture last summer i would have done the same to avoid dieing…

this notion of shopping around for medical care so you can get the best deal only works if you don’t need medical care.

when you do… cost is generally not the most important factor in your decision making process.

i know this is a personal question…

but how old are you?

I am not questioning whether you are an adult

just wondering if you are of an age yet where you have actually had to use medical care for anything other than a sports injury…

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99

when my insurance says 75/25 co-pay untili reach a spending limit…

it means i pick up the 75

and that spending limit is still prohibitive for people with low incomes…

if you have to decide between preventative care for yourself and food for your family..

which do you choose?

Share This

[Author]

Posts