Obamacare Meltdown

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

(...aint, gotta, eh eh, that should fire up theire grammEr police).

Perhaps....but you have scored bonus points for correctly working in the Present Perfect Progressive tense into a post.

have been needing to take action

[Jamo]

We're lighting the torches...

[Excaliber]

Now see THERE is the fundamental problem with you "radicals"!

...the lazy and ignorant that will NOT help themselves.

So everyone that needs health care because they lost their job and their insurance is as you describe above? Are you getting dizzy sitting up there on the mountain looking down on your fellow Americans from such lofty hieghts? Sounds like it...

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Now see THERE is the fundamental problem with you "radicals"!



So everyone that needs health care because they lost their job and their insurance is as you describe above? Are you getting dizzy sitting up there on the mountain looking down on your fellow Americans from such lofty hieghts? Sounds like it...

If millions 'need' health insurance, put them on Medicare until they get back on their feet - those that cannot afford it - put them on Medicaid.

As to private insurance - tweak it - by law - extend Cobra coverage until the covered person secures a new job or goes on Medicare, eliminate pre-existing conditions as a way to turn down coverage, assist self-employed persons to establish 'group coverage' for buying power and about 200 others tweaks that will not cost the government one dime.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

If millions 'need' health insurance, put them on Medicare until they get back on their feet - those that cannot afford it - put them on Medicaid.

As to private insurance - tweak it - by law - extend Cobra coverage until the covered person secures a new job or goes on Medicare, eliminate pre-existing conditions as a way to turn down coverage, assist self-employed persons to establish 'group coverage' for buying power and about 200 others tweaks that will not cost the government one dime.

Most people cannot afford Cobra coverage. Extending it is not going to help. I was laid off last year and collected unemployment for 2 weeks before landing a new gig. I qualified for the max unemployment number (about $625 per week back then). Paying for Cobra coverage would have been about $1700 per month.

The unemployment benefit comes to $32500 per year - but that benefit still gets taxed.
The Cobra coverage cost would have been $20500 per year.

Under this scenario a family of 4 with a single income who gets laid off is screwed. Do you decide to pay for medical coverage, or food and a place to live? Wanting to extend Cobra indicates a lack of understanding of the root cause of the problem; health care is too expensive.

I do not know how to fix this particular scenario without it costing something, but I would like to figure out a way to cover people in this situation until they can get back on their feet. Maybe something like a medical loan plan that works something like unemployment benefits.

A group coverage plan for small business is a good idea and will help reduce administrative costs.

Electronic records will also help reduce costs in the long term, but there will a spike in costs to implement it. HIPAA regs could also make it a bit of a thorny issue, but one that companies familiar with network security could take advantage of. I would not mind seeing some sort of incentive to encourage modernising. This could increase the need for educated people to do this sort of work, and also add jobs.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

VRM - Yes, Cobra is expensive when one needs to pay 100% of the premium when they are jobless, but people need to be responsible by saving for a rainy day, as does government. Those that are not responsible have a tuff road ahead. Why should 'we' (the government) have to step in when someone cannot pay the Cobra premiums?

One way to reduce this problem would be to have a catastrophic policy when one becomes jobless with the premium significantly less. There are tweaks that can readily be made within the current system. There simply aren’t sufficient funds to take care of all the circumstances that people get themselves into during their lifetime.

If we go down the Obama road we will all be responsible for every citizen from birth the death – we don’t want to go there.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

If millions 'need' health insurance, put them on Medicare until they get back on their feet - those that cannot afford it - put them on Medicaid.

As to private insurance - tweak it - by law - extend Cobra coverage until the covered person secures a new job or goes on Medicare, eliminate pre-existing conditions as a way to turn down coverage, assist self-employed persons to establish 'group coverage' for buying power and about 200 others tweaks that will not cost the government one dime.

A little problem with the pre-existing coverage.
insurance Noun
1. the agreement by which one makes regular payments to a company who pay an agreed sum if damage, loss, or death occurs.

Making insurance companies cover pre-x changes the coverage to a subsidy, not insurance. There is no IF.

Insurance companies in most if not all states are allowed to make a certain profit. To raise rates they must go to the state insurance office and apply for an increase. They must PROVE the need for that increase or it is rejected. [the fact that the approving authority is made up of politicians, is for another discussion]
Covering pre-x would automatically give them proof they MUST raise rates.

Insurance MUST be a BET. Make it a sure payout and it is not insurance or affordable for anyone.

For instance, in south Florida. EVERY auto insurance policy has lumped into the premium, $240.00 per year to cover fraud and theft alone. Then the insurance company calculates the bet. 100 miles north of Miami, auto insurance is MUCH cheaper.
Requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions would add hundreds of dollars to everyones premiums, maybe MANY hundreds.

We don't need health INSURANCE, we need reasonable costs for health treatments. Universal health INSURANCE [private, Government, or any combo of them] means NO Doctor OR patient would care at all about how much the health CARE cost. Health care is a PRODUCT, we all need to be concerned about its cost/value and we all need to "shop" for it. The present system of insurance/Government coverage makes 'shopping' impossible and prices irrelevant. Universal coverage not only won't fix that, it WILL make it worse.

[Bartruff1]

I think there will be a bill...but if it was up to me I would rather see the States come up with solutions that fit their demographics. I would like to see the Feds resolve the National Issues on standards and access, billing, records etc... and then give the States the greatest latitude to actually design the plans. I think it was Reagan who came up with the concept of letting the people vote with their feet. One of the real strengths of this country is the diversity of States and we should take advantage of their ideas. What I don't like are the lies and the spin....

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Now see THERE is the fundamental problem with you "radicals"!



So everyone that needs health care because they lost their job and their insurance is as you describe above? Are you getting dizzy sitting up there on the mountain looking down on your fellow Americans from such lofty hieghts? Sounds like it...

Your obummer was ranting about health care when the economy was cooking. Health care was not in crisis then and it is not in crisis now. What is in crisis and the ONLY reason for the 'big push' is obummer's influence. He KNOWS and you should too, it is SO obvious, that this IS his singular chance. The health care bill fails and he is finished. A lame duck with over 3 years left.

People that have lost jobs still get health care same as the lazy, ignorant, people that will not help themselves ALWAYS did and do. And getting health care does not cause one to lose their house or car. Bankruptcy laws protect that. Altho bankruptcy laws are on the ropes under this insane administration. Being out of work and out of money is a greater danger to losing their homes than health problems are.

NOT asking someone else to share their wealth with me is not a lofty height, it is level ground. Those demanding others support them are crawling in the sewers.

[Excaliber]

I can't figure out how to get the "drawl" right around these parts, but I working on it.

[Wayne Maybury]

This shows the importance of this subject and the lobbyists love it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aZdbr0YXz5jI

Wayne

[map]

The new Infomercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdgeS...layer_embedded

[Excaliber]

Reasonable costs is certainly the goal, along those lines, procedures Doctors order that are not warranted or justifiable.

COBRA applies to companies that have 20 or more employees. There are many buisness' in Hawaii that fall short of that so COBRA is not an option for them. And of course the cost is prohibitive in many cases since you loose your job to qualify.

[Jamo]

What amazes me is that Hilliary, and now Barry, refused to tackle a basic generator of higher healthcare costs even though they were/are ready to completely revamp the insurance coverage system: Tort Reform.

Of course, given the plaintiffs' bar (and their fellow travelers, the ABA) huge financial support of the liberals, it is not too surprizing. Hell, we damn near had an ambulance chaser as a Veep...Edwards.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

What amazes me is that Hilliary, and now Barry, refused to tackle a basic generator of higher healthcare costs even though they were/are ready to completely revamp the insurance coverage system: Tort Reform.

Of course, given the plaintiffs' bar (and their fellow travelers, the ABA) huge financial support of the liberals, it is not too surprizing. Hell, we damn near had an ambulance chaser as a Veep...Edwards.

What is that blue word? Mods! We have another spelling error!

Anyway - yep - I said the same thing as a way to get costs down - I think it was in the other Obamacare thread that got closed. The DNC will never go for it, just as the GOP will never abandon big pharma.
So these damn political parties are once again the albatross around our necks.

So do we need better election donation laws before we can fix healthcare?

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Jamo

What amazes me is that Hilliary, and now Barry, refused to tackle a basic generator of higher healthcare costs even though they were/are ready to completely revamp the insurance coverage system: Tort Reform.

Of course, given the plaintiffs' bar (and their fellow travelers, the ABA) huge financial support of the liberals, it is not too surprizing. Hell, we damn near had an ambulance chaser as a Veep...Edwards.

Republicans are pushing to include Tort Reform - no one is listening in the Obama Administration.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Steve...ahem...old English and still asseptable.

I like a little "zing" in my words.

Oh...bite me.

Ok, style points for a good recovery, and a bonus for historical knowledge...

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

Republicans are pushing to include Tort Reform - no one is listening in the Obama Administration.

CdC,
Of course they won't listen; neither party will ever get rid of their cash cows until we force them to. The DNC got to say all kinds of things about how badly the GOP messed things up, and it got them elected. The GOP will get to say all kinds of things about how badly the DNC messed up at the next election, and maybe it will get them elected.

But neither party will ever fix the problem.

I would imagine that most folks on this forum make over $100K annually, or did before they retired. Only 5% of the people in this country make that sort of money. About half of this country lives paycheck to paycheck. I would imagine saving for anything (including retirement) is difficult when most of your income goes to living expenses.

[Excaliber]

On pre-existing conditions:

As I understand it that's not an outright "given". I read something about a panel of, I believe it was 26 people, only ONE of whom is required to be a practicing doctor, would make the final decision on a pre-x.

What struck me about that was this "panel" would have to over see so many cases it would be all but impossible for them to do so? I would imagine they would only see the cases that are involved in a law suit or are high profile. Who would make the day to day decisions in reality for the bulk of the people remains unanswered.

Edit:
Found the article I was referring to above, here's the link to Tommy De Seno's take on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...ng-conditions/

[Jamo]

Steve...ahem...old English and still asseptable.

I like a little "zing" in my words.

Oh...bite me.

[Excaliber]

They've been talking about tort reform for years, long before the current crisis. For some reason it keeps getting swept under the table...