Are you for or against government healthcare - Page 7 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Are you for or against government healthcare

View Poll Results: Are you for or against government healthcare

I am for it

162 53.64%

I am against it

140 46.36%

...

Page 7 of 49

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

Last

Page 7 of 49

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

Last

01-16-2012 , 03:48 PM

#151

Jonaspublius

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,182

Quote:

Originally Posted by jogsxyz

We don't need price controls. Just change the IP laws. After a drug has made a billion dollars, allow generics to compete.

Oh, so only let the first hundred people who can't afford the drug die, THEN give affordable access.

01-16-2012 , 05:17 PM

#152

jogsxyz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,362

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

Oh, so only let the first hundred people who can't afford the drug die, THEN give affordable access.

People are dying all the time. And no one will know it is because of no access to the drug. Under the present system thousands die, while a drug is in testing. You could be in the testing process and still die. Some one has to be in the control group.

01-17-2012 , 04:26 PM

#153

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by grizy

A legit NHS is all but a necessity at this point unless we as a society accept simply letting some people die in the ER because they can't pay for it.

Just wanted to add that it is posts like this coupled with the fact that the poll for this thread is still over 50% pro-government health care (on a forum that is much more right-wing than the general population!) that gives me hope in humanity.

Switching gears, I recently read an article (last summer) that I think can help people see the fundamental problem with privatized health care, but before I post that article, I think it's a good idea to start with this bullet point from an essay on a topic that is totally unrelated to this thread, well not totally, (pay attention to the bolded part):

Quote:

Privatization. Since government is assumed, as a given, to be inefficient, lazy, bloated and uneconomical in the provisioning of goods and services, it was only reasonable to presume that private enterprise could and would perform the delivery of services in a more efficient manner, and hence any activity that delivers goods or services to citizens should and must be privatized. Never was an explanation offered for the contrary incentive of capitalism - that the capitalist's basic profit-driven incentive is to charge as much money as possible for providing as few goods and services as possible.

Now on to the article titled "Health Insurers Sacrifice Americans for Profit":

Quote:

Health Insurers Sacrifice Americans for Profit

Wendell Potter

http://prwatch.org/news/2011/08/1092...ericans-profit

PR Watch

Three of the biggest health insurers have announced quarterly earnings in the past few days. If Americans were able to eavesdrop on what executives from those firms tell their Wall Street masters every three months, they would have a better understanding of why premiums keep going up while the number of people with medical coverage keeps going down.

It only takes three words, when you get right down to it, to describe the real of those folks: profits over people.

CIGNA and Humana are scheduled to report earnings this week. The three companies that have already spoken -- UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna -- earned a combined $2.51 billion from April through the end of June, more than analysts expected. On a per share basis, their earnings were up more than 17 percent on average compared with the second quarter of 2010.

Those results were no anomaly. The big for-profit health insurers have been blowing analysts' expectations out of the water for several quarters in a row, even as the country struggles to recover from the recession and the number of Americans without coverage -- one out of every six of us -- continues to rise.

Based on their strong performance during the first half of this year, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna have all have raised their profit forecast for 2011. In other words, they expect to earn far more this year than last year and far more than even the most hopeful investors and analysts had anticipated.

This has made Wall Street very happy indeed, as reflected in the breathtaking increase in the companies' share prices over the past year. Since the end of July 2010, investors have bid up the stock by more than 50 percent at four of the big five. WellPoint, the laggard, saw its stock price increase by a still-impressive 35 percent.

One of the secrets to achieving these results is what the insurers euphemistically call "medical management." That often translates into denied claims and denied coverage for doctor-ordered care. The fewer claims you pay and the more procedures you refuse to pay for, the more money is left over for investors to put in their pockets.

Another important way they've been able to sustain such a string of impressive earnings results is to shift more and more of the cost of care to their policyholders. An increasing percentage of these companies' policyholders are enrolled in plans that require greater cost sharing. Those policyholders pay more for care out of their own pockets than ever before while their insurers are paying much less.

The insurers are loathe to admit this, and have been making up a host of incredible excuses to explain why they are paying so much less for care than investors and analysts had expected and so much less on a percentage basis than in previous years.

Unending Excuses to Duck the Truth

At the end of 2010, executives told Wall Street that the "utilization" of medical services was lower than in 2009 because the flu season last year was less severe. They assured investors utilization would return to more normal levels during the first quarter of 2011.

When it didn't, the bad winter weather was to blame. Insurance executives wanted us to believe that people were not getting the care they needed because it was colder and snowier than usual. They assured us that medical spending would jump again as soon as the weather improved and the ice and snow melted.

Surprise! It's August and people are still not going to the doctor or picking up their prescriptions or checking into the hospital as much as they usually do.

And what's the excuse this time? It's the economy, they say -- even though the recession officially ended more than a year ago. At least UnitedHealth's executives acknowledged that, as AP reported, "health plans that make patients more aware of the cost of care may be having an impact."

May be? Give me a break. And stop the double-speak. What we're so aware of is that we're simply unable to get the care we need because of the often sky-high deductibles of today's health plans, which insurers mislabel "consumer-driven."

Insurers' Code Words

Insurance industry executives are experts at talking in code, which makes it difficult to understand just how much they value profits over people. Occasionally, though, they slip up, as Aetna's chief financial officer, Joseph Zubretsky, did last Wednesday during his company's conference call with analysts.

Clearly concerned that investors might think Aetna was willing to grow by adding people to its rolls who might have substantial medical needs, Zubretsky disabused Wall Street of that notion.

"We would like to have both profit and growth, but if you have to choose between one or the other, you take margin and profit and you sacrifice the growth line," Zubretsky said.

Whether he knew it or not, he was channeling WellPoint CEO Angela Braley. In a 2008 conference call with financial analysts, Braley had to acknowledge that her company had spent more on medical care during the previous three months than she and Wall Street had expected.

In the future, she promised, "We will not sacrifice profitability for membership."

That was exactly what Wall Street wanted to hear.

WellPoint and Aetna and other insurers have demonstrated repeatedly that while they will do all they can to avoid sacrificing profitability for membership, they are quite willing to sacrifice their members -- and the American public -- for profits.

01-17-2012 , 05:00 PM

#154

jogsxyz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,362

ILOVEPOKER929, what's you point? Government insurance will just be insurance by private companies. The government won't be the actual insurer blindly processing all claims directly from individuals.

01-18-2012 , 12:48 AM

#155

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

I live in MA where universal healthcare started before the obamacare thing was even talked about. Costs have been going up like 20% a year for the past several years. I am essentially a working poor person and my healthcare costs for my family is like 30% of my gross income. Since I work for a company that offers healthcare and has over 50 employees I am not entitled to government healthcare despite people who work for smaller companies or self-employed who make 2-3 times as much as I do getting government covered health insurance. It's pretty whack as the costs of my healthcare for my family is putting me in the poor house. Another great government program that is f ing me over....

01-18-2012 , 12:53 AM

#156

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

So thanks to all those who think they are helping the poor by advocating for government healthcare. I was much better off before this stupid program got up and running. Back then I could actually afford to go to the doctors, now the premium takes such a bite out of my paycheck I can't even afford to use my health insurance (although my new baby did, was in infant special care at the hospital for a month since he was a premie, cost like 70K or something). I'm going to cancel my health insurance when open enrollment comes around again July 1, the money I save can be used to pay cash for all my babies health care needs and me and my wife will just have to wing it and hope we don't get sick.... the government sucks ass bigtime.

01-18-2012 , 01:04 AM

#157

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Wait a minute. You're a) complaining that the govt sucks because they won't let you get on govt healthcare and b) complaining that you're getting screwed because your premiums are a little too high for your liking when the ins. co just paid $70k to help deliver your premie healthy? And now your solution to all this is to walk away from your health insurance?

wat

You do realize healthcare premiums have been going up for pretty much everyone tat much right? Also please cite someone making 2-3x more than you getting their healthcare paid by the state of Mass.

01-18-2012 , 01:08 AM

#158

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

My brother in law. My best friend (he makes 20x as much, it's hidden though).

01-18-2012 , 01:13 AM

#159

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

I don't think you understand what the word cite means. Also a drug dealer gaming the system doesn't count.

01-18-2012 , 01:17 AM

#160

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Consider me a lier if you want. People making twice as much as me can buy health insurance for a much lower rate than what I pay if they don't work for an employer who has 50 or more employees. I am punnished because I happen to not work for a small company.

01-18-2012 , 01:39 AM

#161

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Here are the guidelines for commonwealth care:

You are eligible for Commonwealth Care if:

•you are age 19 or older
•you are uninsured; or paying full premium costs (e.g. under COBRA); or in a waiting period for coverage
•you cannot get coverage as a dependent on a family member's group plan
•you are not eligible for MassHealth, TriCare, the Insurance Partnership, the Unemployment Medical Security Program, the Fishing Partnership Health Plan, or mandated SHIP college student insurance
•you meet the income limits
•you are a citizen or eligible noncitizen
•your current employer (or a family member's employer) has not offered you group health insurance in the past six months where:
•the employer covered at least 20% of the annual premiums for the family plan
•and 33% of the annual premiums for the individual plan
Commonwealth Care is only for adults. Children get MassHealth instead of Commonwealth Care.

The way I understand it, since I am insured and since my employer offers health insurance I am not eligible despite meeting the income guidelines. I would pay like $100/month for the insurance if I worked for a small company or was self-employed but I pay like $700/month for the premium and more than that for co-pays, etc each month). If I misunderstand and do qualify please enlighten me.

01-18-2012 , 04:08 AM

#162

David99

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 452

1. Is Obamacare going to be based on Net Worth or will it be based only on your current income level? For the self employed section they talk about tax credits based on your income related to the poverty level but what about your bank account balances?

2. Are there any estimates to how much a self employed individual should expect to save (ignoring tax credits related to the 400% of poverty line) with the new insurance exchange for these individuals/families?

01-18-2012 , 04:18 AM

#163

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

bk, so you want coverage to expand to cover you?

01-18-2012 , 05:22 AM

#164

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

bk, so you want coverage to expand to cover you?

My point is the gov't program and all the money that went into creating it is still whack

01-18-2012 , 08:19 AM

#165

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

My point is the gov't program and all the money that went into creating it is still whack

YEAH BUT YOU WON THAT ONE HUGE MONSTER POT SO REALLY IF YOU COMPLAIN THAT THE SOFTWARE IS TAKING AN EXTRA CHIP EVERY TIME YOU CALL A BET THEN YOURE JUST A ****ING SOMETHING SOMETHING HYPOCRITE

01-18-2012 , 08:55 AM

#166

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

It's pretty whack as the costs of my healthcare for my family is putting me in the poor house. Another great government program that is f ing me over....

I'm so ****ing confused. You had a premie that cost the insurance company 70K dollars? If you didn't have insurance you would have had to pay that money out of pocket, right? It's not like you could have not put your kid in the intensive care. It just seems silly to blame the Government for your situation instead of you know - your life choices and random life events like a premature baby.

01-18-2012 , 09:24 AM

#167

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Im sure his plan to cancel his health insurance, pay medical expenses of his premature baby out of pocket and hope that him or his wife dont get sick has no flaws.

Im pretty sure bk has argued against government run integrated healthcare in the past too, which is completely contrary to what his personal experiences should have taught him.

01-18-2012 , 09:44 AM

#168

jogsxyz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,362

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

I believe you. Suzzer doesn't know what he's talking about.

01-18-2012 , 10:41 AM

#169

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

YEAH BUT YOU WON THAT ONE HUGE MONSTER POT SO REALLY IF YOU COMPLAIN THAT THE SOFTWARE IS TAKING AN EXTRA CHIP EVERY TIME YOU CALL A BET THEN YOURE JUST A ****ING SOMETHING SOMETHING HYPOCRITE

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

walla

01-18-2012 , 10:44 AM

#170

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

pvn, your analogy begs the question of whether the software really is taking an extra chip when you call a bet. Which i guess that is meant to represent the government increasing healthcare costs.

01-18-2012 , 10:45 AM

#171

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

You're missing my point. I'm not saying he can't complain about how the government takes money out. I'm saying he can't BLAME the government for his current financial situation.

What system do you or he advocate that wouldn't leave him in a similar financial situation after $70K in medical expenses?

01-18-2012 , 10:48 AM

#172

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

lolwut

you realize the overall premium trend and a single $70k event are (for practical purposes) independent events, right? If he hadn't incurred the $70k hospital stay he'd be in the same boat right now.

01-18-2012 , 10:50 AM

#173

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Let's say I steal 25% of your 401k in 2007 and put the rest into cash. You avoid the massive 2008 crash which would have erased more than 25% of your portfolio value, so you can't blame me for your situation, right? We should just ignore that event completely.

01-18-2012 , 10:52 AM

#174

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

pvn, your analogy begs the question of whether the software really is taking an extra chip when you call a bet. Which i guess that is meant to represent the government increasing healthcare costs.