Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Questions for y'all

My sister was a gymnast.
Gymnastics is a sport that often results in injuries.

Her injuries were covered by my fathers medical plan.

Should they have been covered by the tax payer?

While I personally choose not to handle rattlesnakes, many people with my hobby do.

An envenomation incident usually costs over 30K to treat.
If the person either naturally has or develops an allergy to the antivenin produced by horses, they have to use serum from sheep which is much more expensive.

Should the tax payer be stuck with the bill of someone who goes out and picks up rattlesnakes?

I smoke.
When I come down with lung cancer, should you be stuck footing my bill?

Sure - they tax tobacco to offset costs, but those taxes seem largely to be going to other things and not to health care of smokers.
The tax increase they just put on us is going to health care (allegedly), but for children, not smokers.
Should you pay higher taxes because I smoke, or should my premium be higher because I smoke?

I would answer you with a resounding yes. A healthy populace is more productive and happier than an unhealthy one, but that's been repeated a few dozen times to you.

Drug industry OKs $80 billion Medicare deal
White House, key senator get promise of lower costs for some seniors

WASHINGTON (AP) - The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.

"This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord.

The deal marked a major triumph for Baucus as well as the administration. Obama praised the deal.

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade," Obama said. "We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform."

Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has been negotiating with numerous industry groups for weeks as he tries to draft legislation that meets Obama's goal of vastly expanding health coverage, has bipartisan support and does not add to the deficit.

Baucus' announcement said drug companies would pay half of the cost of brand-name drugs for seniors in the so-called doughnut hole — a gap in coverage that is a feature of many of the plans providing prescription coverage under Medicare. Other officials said wealthier Medicare beneficiaries would not receive the same break, but there was no mention of that in the statement.

In addition, the entire cost of the drug would count toward a patient's out-of-pocket costs, meaning their insurance coverage would cover more of their expenses than otherwise.

My bold.

Bat wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Oh I have thought about it.
The program and employees already in place, all it takes is changing the eligibility requirements.
We can even easily change those draconian rules you seem to think government healthcare has.
Hard to believe government coverage would have draconian rules and such though, you're just funnin us  aren't you.

I doubt you've been in the system. My primary point was that you'd likely have to make anyone in res' cats 3 & 4 meet the criteria everyone else has to meet. Use SSI as an example; $2,000 in assets not including house you live in, and car- not a pricey one, either. I suppose if you have a good car you're supposed to sell it...but that in turn would put you over the cap and require further spend-down. Essentially you have to become a pauper, a sick one at that. Make that chronic and you middle-aged, you essentially put someone on minimal life support, with no future. In your case, I suppose you could keep your house, but would have to divest everything else- farm, equipment, savings...

Yeah, I'm funnin' ya. Sounds like fun, no? A real way to run this railroad, and doable at a pen's stroke.

...not. Or face lawsuits & challenges out the wazoo for years.

I've said this twice now but you don't seem to be getting it.
I'll try using different wording.

All it takes is loosening the criteria to allow the current programs to cover those currently caught between too poor to buy their own but too rich to qualify under current rules.
All the framework is there, in place and running for years.
It doesn't take a national debate to do this, no new agency, no new forms.
Just one little tweak to the rules and presto, everyone has health insurance.

So you have to wonder, what really is the goal here.

resedit wrote:

How so?

If I'm still already paying for it, then he is getting the services and thus it isn't a problem.
If he's not getting services, then what exactly am I ultimately paying for?

The problem is that they get the care, but only at a time when it becomes an emergency and when it is most expensive (and debilitating).  Rather then having yearly exams showing a problem and getting medication or having a procedure to combat the problem early when it isn't a big deal and will cost a few thousand, the only time these people are getting care is when they are wheeled into an ER which is legally required to stabilize you, the cost of which can run in the tens of thousands of dollars.  But since very few people can afford $30k bills many people are forced to declare bankruptcy leaving the hospitals, doctors and other service providers no means of collecting that money and they do what any company does with a client they cannot collect from, they eat it and raise the prices of those that they can collect from to compensate.  THAT is how it is costing us.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-06-21 8:58 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

Bat wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Oh I have thought about it.
The program and employees already in place, all it takes is changing the eligibility requirements.
We can even easily change those draconian rules you seem to think government healthcare has.
Hard to believe government coverage would have draconian rules and such though, you're just funnin us  aren't you.

I doubt you've been in the system. My primary point was that you'd likely have to make anyone in res' cats 3 & 4 meet the criteria everyone else has to meet. Use SSI as an example; $2,000 in assets not including house you live in, and car- not a pricey one, either. I suppose if you have a good car you're supposed to sell it...but that in turn would put you over the cap and require further spend-down. Essentially you have to become a pauper, a sick one at that. Make that chronic and you middle-aged, you essentially put someone on minimal life support, with no future. In your case, I suppose you could keep your house, but would have to divest everything else- farm, equipment, savings...

Yeah, I'm funnin' ya. Sounds like fun, no? A real way to run this railroad, and doable at a pen's stroke.

...not. Or face lawsuits & challenges out the wazoo for years.

I've said this twice now but you don't seem to be getting it.
I'll try using different wording.

All it takes is loosening the criteria to allow the current programs to cover those currently caught between too poor to buy their own but too rich to qualify under current rules.
All the framework is there, in place and running for years.
It doesn't take a national debate to do this, no new agency, no new forms.
Just one little tweak to the rules and presto, everyone has health insurance.

So you have to wonder, what really is the goal here.

That does not address the problem of the HUGE amount of overhead our Byzantine multi-payer system causes.
Medicaid/care has about a 1% administrative cost. Private carriers more in the area of 30%. That, all by it' self is the largest single reason why medical care is so expensive here.
Achieving universal coverage would certainly be an important step forward but still places the burden on employers and that is a serious handicap for our companies in a global environment where so many countries have universal care which acts as a substantial indirect subsidy to their businesses.
While plenty of other things contributed the sheer weight of their health care burden is what sank GM and Chrysler.

Who We Are

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. CAHI's membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

user wrote:

Who We Are

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. CAHI's membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system.

Do they explain how Uncle Sugar is supposed to pay for this master plan? I mean it can't be a big deal, since deficit-obsessed Kev makes it sound like a piece of cake.

Wait a minute here.
We are already paying for this according to the minithink brain trust so it should be cheaper to do it this way.

Medicare expenses are roughly double the cost per patient, old folks versus young healthier people.
As a percentage of total costs, admin will be less when you spend more on claims.
Pretty obvious if you think for just a moment.

The only added expense private has over public is a shareholder return and higher upper management salaries. It still takes X number of people sitting in X number of buildings to process the claims.
It would be interesting to see the cost of those employees, public versus private, compared wouldn't it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Do they explain how Uncle Sugar is supposed to pay for this master plan? I mean it can't be a big deal, since deficit-obsessed Kev makes it sound like a piece of cake.

Wait a minute here.
We are already paying for this according to the minithink brain trust so it should be cheaper to do it this way.

The what standard????

What are the government's health costs going to be in ten or fifteen years?

Where did you come up with the word standard?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The what standard????

What are the government's health costs going to be in ten or fifteen years?

Where did you come up with the word standard?

Point is, you're as usual making zero sense.

And as usual you're not answering questions or noticing people's points. Lately you're like resedit on steroids.

Point is as usual you aren't paying attention to what people write and say because you're too busy trying to find something to ridicule.
Laying it out Dick and Jane style.

- the uninsured cost us more than they would if they had insurance.
This has been an article of faith in every minithink discussion on healthcare and has been restated in this thread as well.
-  I point out the obvious, getting the uninsured coverage doesn't require any new program. Simply add them to what we already have in place. Using the liberal logic expressed in numerous threads it should cost us less than it currently does with them uninsured. Paying for it shouldn't be a problem.
- As you just pointed out and I've said numerous times in past threads, none of this does anything to address the rising costs of healthcare. Solutions to that don't have anything to do with universal coverage and can be implemented at any time regardless of the uninsured.

Farmerkev wrote:

Oh I have thought about it.

The program and employees already in place, all it takes is changing the eligibility requirements.
We can even easily change those draconian rules you seem to think government healthcare has.
Hard to believe government coverage would have draconian rules and such though, you're just funnin us  aren't you.

Medicaid is welfare. . . you do want rules and eligibility requirements, no?

Whereas, single payer is not welfare. it is a system which covers everybody. It is funded by taxes, and can significantly bring down the cost of insurance via volume, regulating profits, and regulating costs.

Farmerkev wrote:

Medicare expenses are roughly double the cost per patient, old folks versus young healthier people.
As a percentage of total costs, admin will be less when you spend more on claims.
Pretty obvious if you think for just a moment.

The only added expense private has over public is a shareholder return and higher upper management salaries. It still takes X number of people sitting in X number of buildings to process the claims.
It would be interesting to see the cost of those employees, public versus private, compared wouldn't it.

. . . so double the administrative cost of medicare, 2% as opposed to 30%, still sounds like a no brainer to me.