1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIncorrectly.
I believe I already listed the responsibilities originally given by the Founders.
See the Commerce Clause and Tax and Spend provisions.
You also refused to answer my question which I will repeat: Did the Constitution increase, leave at the same level or decrease the power of the Federal government?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraas healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the employers are finally going to realize (possibly en masse) they just can't afford to cover their employees anymore.
The question is: what method is most efficient? At what level of government should health care be regulated to get the best results? I don't think it would be a very good idea if a poor state like Texas has no health care for all its people while e.g. Massachusetts does, this will make the differences in wealth between the states even bigger.
Everyone will then have to buy their own insurance. The healthy people will be able to cover their own expenses (as they should be) and won't really complain very much.
But people with chronic illnesses will find that no one is willing to give them insurance - at least not at a price they can even think of affording. (If you were an insurance company, would YOU want to give these people insurance?). And even the healthy people will wonder what will happen to them and their families if they should develop a chronic illness.
But, hey, this is Texas. People don't get sick in Texas. That only happens in Massachussetts.
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesHealthy people can purchase catastrophic insurance to cover emergencies with relatively low premiums. They can also set up HSAs to pay for healthcare costs, which have tremendous tax advantages. That's what I would do if I were single.
as healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the employers are finally going to realize (possibly en masse) they just can't afford to cover their employees anymore.
Everyone will then have to buy their own insurance. The healthy people will be able to cover their own expenses (as they should be) and won't really complain very much.
But people with chr ...[text shortened]... But, hey, this is Texas. People don't get sick in Texas. That only happens in Massachussetts.
But, I'm not single and I can't tell my kids not to get sick or not to take the antibiotic that that the doctor prescribed because there's another generic one that may work also.
Many states, including NY, don't allow denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. According to my friend who's an insurance broker, this factor alone increases premiums by 100% over what they would otherwise be.
Personally, I think the only long term solution is to expand Medicaid and to allow everyone the choice of going on it, but require the payment of premiums. The premiums can be based on a sliding scale based on income and resources. If they need to tack on, say, a 1 point Medicaid tax with the payroll tax, so be it.
Once everyone has the option of going on Medicaid, the private insurance industry should then be deregulated. If you have a pre-existing condition, either go on Medicaid or pay the higher premiums for private insurance. In many states, private health insurance is hardly a free market. The producer doesn't really have freedom because of tight regulation. The consumer doesn't really have freedom because he needs to service too badly. This would correct both of those and allow everyone some level of coverage.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by sh76Socialist.
Healthy people can purchase catastrophic insurance to cover emergencies with relatively low premiums. They can also set up HSAs to pay for healthcare costs, which have tremendous tax advantages. That's what I would do if I were single.
But, I'm not single and I can't tell my kids not to get sick or not to take the antibiotic that that the doctor prescribed b ...[text shortened]... e too badly. This would correct both of those and allow everyone some level of coverage.
Originally posted by sh76I agree with you.
Healthy people can purchase catastrophic insurance to cover emergencies with relatively low premiums. They can also set up HSAs to pay for healthcare costs, which have tremendous tax advantages. That's what I would do if I were single.
But, I'm not single and I can't tell my kids not to get sick or not to take the antibiotic that that the doctor prescribed b ...[text shortened]... e too badly. This would correct both of those and allow everyone some level of coverage.
In general there are three categories.
1. routine expenses - which everyone who isn't dirt poor should be able to handle by themselves -- medical savings accounts can be set up for this purpose
2. acute catastrophes - where there's a sudden, but temporary crisis. Insurance can be purchased for this at relatively low premiums. Private charity also steps in to help out in these cases.
3. chronic conditions and old age - where there's a need for continual annual healthcare expenses that are beyond an individual's ability to afford. The only way for private insurance to cover these people and still make a profit is to charge them unaffordably high premiums.
Most of category #3 is already covered by Medicare (for the elderly) or Medicaid (for the dirt poor). The main issue involves the people caught in between.
It's easy to pass a law telling insurers they can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But if the insurer (to remain profitable) has to charge a rate that these people can't afford, it's pretty much the same thing.
I agree that the only real way to cover Category #3 is some sort of "public option" - whether it means expanding Medicare, expanding Medicaid, or some new program that acts in a similar way. Unless someone in the private sector is ready to come forward with a free market solution that will work for this group.
The problem is that everyone thinks the "public option" is evil incarnate - even the Medicare recipients who are already using a "public option".
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesActually, the "public option" has consistently garnered majority support. The last aggregate of polls I saw had about 52% in favor and 40% opposed. http://www.pollingnumbers.com/poll-of-polls/public-health-insurance-option.html
I agree with you.
In general there are three categories.
1. routine expenses - which everyone who isn't dirt poor should be able to handle by themselves -- medical savings accounts can be set up for this purpose
2. acute catastrophes - where there's a sudden, but temporary crisis. Insurance can be purchased for this at relatively low premiums. Pr incarnate - even the Medicare recipients who are already using a "public option".
Of course, the Senate bill, as a sop to a few conservative Democrats, continued no "public option".
Originally posted by sh76they should just fund health care like they do the highways.
Healthy people can purchase catastrophic insurance to cover emergencies with relatively low premiums. They can also set up HSAs to pay for healthcare costs, which have tremendous tax advantages. That's what I would do if I were single.
But, I'm not single and I can't tell my kids not to get sick or not to take the antibiotic that that the doctor prescribed b ...[text shortened]... e too badly. This would correct both of those and allow everyone some level of coverage.
usage tax for everyone.
if you can't pony up, off to the work farms with you!
dodgers to the guillotine!
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the public option were coupled with deregulation of private health insurance, I think it would get some support (it would get mine, in any case). But the proposals were for a public option plus increased regulation of private insurers. This would effectively destroy private insurers in the long run.
Actually, the "public option" has consistently garnered majority support. The last aggregate of polls I saw had about 52% in favor and 40% opposed. http://www.pollingnumbers.com/poll-of-polls/public-health-insurance-option.html
Of course, the Senate bill, as a sop to a few conservative Democrats, continued no "public option".
Once there's a public option, I don't see why there's a need to regulate the private insurance industry. People who are locked out of affordable private plans because of actuarially sound policies (e.g., higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions) can use the public option. Healthy people who want private insurance can pay relatively low premiums.
Public option PLUS increased federal regulation of private policies (I remember HR 3200's intense regulation of private insurance being more strict than even New York is now; HR 3200 banned non-grandfathered private policies that didn't pass a litany of invasive regulations) is a short road to a Canadian style single payer system. I'm not making a judgment on the Canadian system (which has been proposed as HR 676, BTW), but the majority of American people are not in favor of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I agree. The existence of medical savings accounts and a public option would eliminate the need to regulate the insurance industry. If people find the insurance companies are offering a lousy deal or refusing to provide coverage, the healthy people could just use their own savings, and everyone else could use the public option.
If the public option were coupled with deregulation of private health insurance, I think it would get some support (it would get mine, in any case). But the proposals were for a public option plus increased regulation of private insurers. This would effectively destroy private insurers in the long run.
Once there's a public option, I don't see why there's a been proposed as HR 676, BTW), but the majority of American people are not in favor of it.
And I'd do everything possible to open every market to as much competition as possible. With competitors ready to swoop in, no insurance company will want the bad press of a horror story about someone whose insurer is refusing to pay for their child's cystic fibrosis.
A major problem is that if people are using their own savings to cover their healthcare, we wouldn't have "universal coverage". The Dems need to get over it. The goal is to make sure everyone can afford to get the healthcare that they need. This does NOT have to involve the government or an insurance company. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the whole mantra about "universal coverage" was actually created by the insurance industry.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Whatever your opinion is, the link gives the poll results and the poll questions. The majority favor a public option that competes with private insurers; if the latter can't compete tough luck for them - it's not like they have been providing an adequate product at a reasonable price.
If the public option were coupled with deregulation of private health insurance, I think it would get some support (it would get mine, in any case). But the proposals were for a public option plus increased regulation of private insurers. This would effectively destroy private insurers in the long run.
Once there's a public option, I don't see why there's a been proposed as HR 676, BTW), but the majority of American people are not in favor of it.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the latter can't compete because in the free market their products aren't as good as the government product, yes, tough luck on them.
Whatever your opinion is, the link gives the poll results and the poll questions. The majority favor a public option that competes with private insurers; if the latter can't compete tough luck for them - it's not like they have been providing an adequate product at a reasonable price.
If the latter can't compete because the government, through onerous regulations, forces them into fiscally unsound policies (e.g., charging the same premiums for healthy people as for cancer patients), then it's unfair to the insurers.