Mandate insurance purchase?

Supposn · 10-18-2009, 08:18 AM

America’s Health Insurance Plans, (AHIP) is the health insurance insurer’s PR organization. They correctly contend proportionately low purchasers of contend insufficient numbers of young healthy people increases our national per-capita insurance expenses. Commercial insurers must raise their prices to all clients if a federal act should prohibit medical insurers from practicing discrimination due to medical status.

The Senate Finance Committee’s proposed health bill mandates everyone purchase health insurance, AHIP contends the proposed tax penalties upon those who do purchase insurance would be insufficient to achieve their purpose.

I am opposed primary dependence upon non-government health insurers but what ever policy we choose should be heavily subsidized by the federal government. A federal sales tax would be the most superior funding of federal health insurance funding.

If we are to be at all dependent upon non-government health insurance, the federal government should pay individual's catastrophic annual medical expenses for those non-government insurers who purchase such re-insurance. It would operate similar to FDIC insurance for participating banks. Today when extraordinary medical expenses are encountered the government is effectively the payer of last resort.

Respectfully, Supposn

Zack · 10-18-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

America’s Health Insurance Plans, (AHIP) is the health insurance insurer’s PR organization. They correctly contend proportionately low purchasers of contend insufficient numbers of young healthy people increases our national per-capita insurance expenses. Commercial insurers must raise their prices to all clients if a federal act should prohibit medical insurers from practicing discrimination due to medical status.

The Senate Finance Committee’s proposed health bill mandates everyone purchase health insurance, AHIP contends the proposed tax penalties upon those who do purchase insurance would be insufficient to achieve their purpose.

I am opposed primary dependence upon non-government health insurers but what ever policy we choose should be heavily subsidized by the federal government. A federal sales tax would be the most superior funding of federal health insurance funding.

If we are to be at all dependent upon non-government health insurance, the federal government should pay individual's catastrophic annual medical expenses for those non-government insurers who purchase such re-insurance. It would operate similar to FDIC insurance for participating banks. Today when extraordinary medical expenses are encountered the government is effectively the payer of last resort.

Respectfully, Supposn

Everyone looks at health care from a point of view of getting something for nothing. Low income people could give a crap about health care until they have a health problem, this is made evident by the SCHIP program. The SCHIP program offers free insurance for children and millions of authorized kids and adults have failed to register for the benefit...they just don't care, they never will care until they are faced with an emergency.

America and the federal government breeds irresponsibility and encourages irresponsibility by getting involved with health care insurance. The Democrats and the Republicans are playing the same game of promoting irresponsibility.

If the Democrats team up with private insurance companies to force or citizens to buy insurance or pay fines they are promoting private or public insurance. Many people will distrust the government regardless the cost and simply make the private companies even more powerful. The end result will be more expensive care a few years down the road.

What congress needs to do is set a cap on nationwide insurance requiring individuals to pay all medical expenses for the first $2,000.00 of medical care. This $2,000.00 deductible would lower insurance prices for health care because the insurance companies would find that most people would only buy catastrophic insurance and would not invest in insurance at all for the exception of catastrophic issues. If you have $2,000.00 tied up in family health care then most would find their costs are covered for the year. Make Emergency Room visits for emergencies only and install state/federal debt collectors to chase the freeloaders to the edges of hell.

Pay 100% of Medicaid and Medicare costs to doctors and hospitals and assist in the collections for services from those now not paying for services. Those not able would be covered by Medicaid those capable would either save for medical care or be hounded by the government debt collectors that would follow your SS# to the ends of the earth to get their money.

If the government teams up with private insurance corporations to force more people to spend money on insurance from their companies the individual should be allowed to buy insurance on a deductible method... I would offer every US citizen health insurance for $10.00 a year with a $3 million dollar deductible. So, requiring insurance forces more options, options that will make private companies the better option... If the government will charge me $1,000 dollar fine for not having health insurance a private company will spring up and offer it for $900 or for $10 in the example given.

Supposn · 10-18-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack

Everyone looks at health care from a point of view of getting something for nothing. Low income people could give a crap about health care until they have a health problem, this is made evident by the SCHIP program. The SCHIP program offers free insurance for children and millions of authorized kids and adults have failed to register for the benefit...they just don't care, they never will care until they are faced with an emergency.

Zack, you’re wrong. People DO care for their children. I attribute SCHIP’s proportionately lesser participation (as compared to Medicare/Medicaid for the elderly), to the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP are administered as public assistance programs.

Medicare participants may choose (or fire) their health providers. In most states SCHIP participants do not have that right. (13% of USA’s children are not covered by any sufficient or insufficient medical insurance. The similar statistic for the elderly is less than 1.5%).

For the services provided by Medicare, all of the covered elderly receive the same Medicare quality of service. For covered medical procedures, Medicare's quality of care is the USA’s golden standard of all government and non-government health insurance.

State’s Children’s Health Insurance Plans, (SCHIP) was created to serve the medical insurance needs of children and pregnant women. All lower and most middle family incomes do not exceed CHIPS income caps. Medicaid’s income “caps” are much lower. Only the extreme poor, those qualifying for public welfare can qualify for most state’s Medicaid programs.

To a great extent this statistical difference is attributable to elderlie's greater medical needs but also to the majority of elderly being covered by Medicare rather than Medicaid which is administered as a welfare program.

I advocate if we can not afford to expand Medicare for all, we could expand Medicare to cover children and pregnant women. If we can not afford to cover all children, we could attempt to cover only those under 13 years of age. If we can not afford that, then Medicare should at least cover children under the age of six. In all case Medicaid and SCHIP should remain in place for those who can not afford Medicare.

Respectfully, Supposn

Zack · 10-18-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

Zack, you’re wrong. People DO care for their children. I attribute SCHIP’s proportionately lesser participation (as compared to Medicare/Medicaid for the elderly), to the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP are administered as public assistance programs.

Medicare participants may choose (or fire) their health providers. In most states SCHIP participants do not have that right. (13% of USA’s children are not covered by any sufficient or insufficient medical insurance. The similar statistic for the elderly is less than 1.5%).

For the services provided by Medicare, all of the covered elderly receive the same Medicare quality of service. For covered medical procedures, Medicare's quality of care is the USA’s golden standard of all government and non-government health insurance.

State’s Children’s Health Insurance Plans, (SCHIP) was created to serve the medical insurance needs of children and pregnant women. All lower and most middle family incomes do not exceed CHIPS income caps. Medicaid’s income “caps” are much lower. Only the extreme poor, those qualifying for public welfare can qualify for most state’s Medicaid programs.

To a great extent this statistical difference is attributable to elderlie's greater medical needs but also to the majority of elderly being covered by Medicare rather than Medicaid which is administered as a welfare program.

I advocate if we can not afford to expand Medicare for all, we could expand Medicare to cover children and pregnant women. If we can not afford to cover all children, we could attempt to cover only those under 13 years of age. If we can not afford that, then Medicare should at least cover children under the age of six. In all case Medicaid and SCHIP should remain in place for those who can not afford Medicare.

Respectfully, Supposn

SCHIP is welfare for non-poverty, sometimes at 200--300% of poverty lazy irresponsible people that would rather spend money on a tattoo or flat screen TV than health care for their children... in some states adults are covered by the programs and not pregnant adults, college kids in their twenties whose parents are earning well enough to provide insurance for them in their low risk age group. SCHIP lowers the participation in public insurance purchases just as a public option would do the same.

Medicaid is for all people of poverty including children... many people that qualify for Medicaid also purchase private insurance at work and use the same medical facilities that the middle class use. I ask you this, why does SCHIP exist if they could just send the same children covered by SCHIP to Medicaid? Why not just increase the poverty wage level so people earning a hundred grand with a family of four can use Medicaid? Medicare is failing across the US due to falling state revenue and only continues because of being propped up by the federal government during the downturn in the economy.

Medicare was a bad idea from the start, it has never been a good program because it doesn't pay for itself, not even close and is anticipated to go bankrupt in just a few years... this after collecting millions of dollars from the productive working class over decades... doctors and hospitals are refusing to cover Medicare patients because the government doesn't pay 20% of the god damned bill for services rendered.To expand Medicare would be to assure the US goes bankrupt while assuring doctors would find a new trade to earn a living because a farmer won't sell steaks, nor will a fisherman sell lobsters to the government for 20% less than the market value.... Perhaps we should get the government to buy milk and eggs and pay 20% less than they cost too so we could have healthier children with all the nice breakfasts we could afford with a 20% cut on expenses?

Medicaid is a valid function of government but SCHIP is a fraud and abuse of the public requiring high taxation to fund for services of productive people they could purchase on their own.

We need to get the government out of post poverty babysitting of productive people. End Medicare and replace it with a system that allows individuals to own the account of money that's now collected for supporting Medicare. Apply the same system I stated earlier in this thread of paying deductibles from the new owned account, if you earn $50K then perhaps a $2,000 deductible but if you earn $250K then perhaps a $10,000 deductible that would allow you to pay very small amounts in catastrophic insurance policies. When you die then will the left over cash and interests to those you choose to will it to for their medical purposes.... get the government out of the way and make people responsible for themselves after they reach the poverty bar.

Supposn · 10-24-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack

Medicare was a bad idea from the start, it has never been a good program because it doesn't pay for itself, not even close and is anticipated to go bankrupt in just a few years...
..........this after collecting millions of dollars from the productive working class over decades... doctors and hospitals are refusing to cover Medicare patients because the government doesn't pay 20% of the god damned bill for services rendered.

ZACK, I agree that we should strive to fund all government activity. I’m an advocate of a general sales tax to fund all net federal health insurance expenses.

State laws and regulations require doctors and hospitals to provide emergency treatment until the patient is stable. Other then these emergency situations, doctors and hospitals are not required to subsidize any patient’s care. The compensation schedules of all insurance are similar to those of Medicare.

Some doctors and hospitals do grumble about Medicare’s compensa5tion schedules. Few if any of us believe we are sufficiently compensated. Why should we expect otherwise from doctors and hospitals? They have not objected to the extent that they refuse Medicare’s money and refuse to accept Medicare patients.

[There are rural area's within this nation that are medically deprived. Within such area's those with less money, (without regrd to beining or not being covered by Medicare), have access to less medical care]. Other than these medically deprived area's, Medicasre patients have sufficient access to fully qualified doctors of all specialties.

Regarding your contention that Medicare’s compensation is insufficient by 20%, Medicare permits doctors to bill their patients as much as 20% for co-payments. Many commercial insures also have 20% co-payments within their contracts.

Respectfully, Supposn

Zack · 10-24-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

ZACK, I agree that we should strive to fund all government activity. I’m an advocate of a general sales tax to fund all net federal health insurance expenses.

State laws and regulations require doctors and hospitals to provide emergency treatment until the patient is stable. Other then these emergency situations, doctors and hospitals are not required to subsidize any patient’s care. The compensation schedules of all insurance are similar to those of Medicare.

Some doctors and hospitals do grumble about Medicare’s compensa5tion schedules. Few if any of us believe we are sufficiently compensated. Why should we expect otherwise from doctors and hospitals? They have not objected to the extent that they refuse Medicare’s money and refuse to accept Medicare patients.

[There are rural area's within this nation that are medically deprived. Within such area's those with less money, (without regrd to beining or not being covered by Medicare), have access to less medical care]. Other than these medically deprived area's, Medicasre patients have sufficient access to fully qualified doctors of all specialties.

Regarding your contention that Medicare’s compensation is insufficient by 20%, Medicare permits doctors to bill their patients as much as 20% for co-payments. Many commercial insures also have 20% co-payments within their contracts.

Respectfully, Supposn

I think you lack objectivity based on what just went down in the Senate... Senate Rejects ‘Doc Fix’ Spending Bill, as Some Democrats Side With Republicans - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

Edited to add:I think all government sponsored medical programs should be at state level. If a state elected to fund a system like Medicaid then let them pay all expenses and determine who could participate. If a neighboring state offered a better program for less costs then perhaps the customers for one states program might migrate to the state where the service is better. The same goes for retirement medicine such as Medicare... let the states run the program based on local costs... if you as an individual elect to move to a more expensive area say from WY to FL then the additional costs would be on the individual. The competition between the state programs would function like the Welfare states of the 1950's and 60's... if you are a freeloading welfare person looking for handouts and on Medicaid then you would move to a state that provided exceptional Medicaid. If you are a working tax paying citizen from a state that gives more freeloader benefits then you can elect to vote lawmakers out of office that offer more than neighboring states in order to reduce your taxes.

By having regional systems state governments can establish systems that benefit their individual states citizens. They can minimize Medicaid expense while maximizing Medicare care resulting in more producing citizens living in their states while reducing costs of programs.

yzerman19wingnut · 10-19-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supposn

State’s Children’s Health Insurance Plans, (SCHIP) was created to serve the medical insurance needs of children and pregnant women. All lower and most middle family incomes do not exceed CHIPS income caps. Medicaid’s income “caps” are much lower. Only the extreme poor, those qualifying for public welfare can qualify for most state’s Medicaid programs.

As it should be because only the extremely destitute are unable to afford insurance. People who work at McDonalds qualify for employer health insurance.

Let me say that again. McDonalds provides health insurance to it's employees. So the only ones that have an excuse are kids who can't work because mommy and daddy are lazy asses or if you are disabled and can't go to work. Other than that 100% of the population can either afford health insurance or can go on government aid.

So why are we even debating this? There's no need for any of it.

hot dragon · 12-30-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack

America and the federal government breeds irresponsibility and encourages irresponsibility by getting involved with health care insurance. The Democrats and the Republicans are playing the same game of promoting irresponsibility.

does this just apply to health? i could make the same argument for other things.

why should the government get involved in education? leave schools, college, university, everything to the individuals. if they really want to go, they can pay for it themselves, if they are lazy and cant be bothered getting educated, why should that be my problem?

why ask the government to intervene in the environment? better to ask individuals to make sure they know the consequences of their purchases and they can choose environmentally better options themselves, government interference is just driving up the price.

the government should get out of law enforcement, just make the laws and leave it up to individuals to ensure they are enforced. you can pay to prosecute and incarcerate your assailant yourself, you should just take out crime insurance and cover your own ass, why ask the taxpayer to cover it?

also zack, you once argued it should be the responsibility of families, churches and society to provide social services. doesnt this also "promote irresponsibility" in the same way? it doesnt matter whether assistance came from a local church or a federal grant, the individual still isnt doing anything for themselves.

Zack · 12-31-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot dragon

does this just apply to health? i could make the same argument for other things.

why should the government get involved in education? leave schools, college, university, everything to the individuals. if they really want to go, they can pay for it themselves, if they are lazy and cant be bothered getting educated, why should that be my problem?

why ask the government to intervene in the environment? better to ask individuals to make sure they know the consequences of their purchases and they can choose environmentally better options themselves, government interference is just driving up the price.

the government should get out of law enforcement, just make the laws and leave it up to individuals to ensure they are enforced. you can pay to prosecute and incarcerate your assailant yourself, you should just take out crime insurance and cover your own ass, why ask the taxpayer to cover it?

also zack, you once argued it should be the responsibility of families, churches and society to provide social services. doesnt this also "promote irresponsibility" in the same way? it doesnt matter whether assistance came from a local church or a federal grant, the individual still isnt doing anything for themselves.

All cultures have evolved over many thousands of years and family generations, many customs and laws are based on lessons learned by former generations. The father of the bride pays for the wedding and gives away the bride... the bride takes the family name of the family name she was given to...This system endured for generations and was a result of learned realities.

Government actions can break generational customs without testing the outcome of the changes they put in place. In America Social Security has changed the significance of the above custom... in Europe the change came much earlier or transitioned more quickly. The basis of the custom was preservation of the family unit... a strong family unit where parents depended on their male children to care for the parents in their old age... the female child was "given away" to another family where she supported her man and his elders in his family...likewise, the male offspring of the family gained a female mate that would assist the support of the family unit. Government social programs have made this custom obsolete and caused the breakdown of the family unit.

In Europe and America boy and girls born to a family now do not feel a responsibility to care for their parents in elder age... girls don't feel they "belong" to the new family or her husband and boys feel all they do they do for themselves and their families leaving the government and their own selfishness to live the best they can in their old age. One of the results of this government program is a breakdown of the family unit and growing self indulgence of making "me" (be it girl or boy) happy with the most pleasure possible. In Western Europe and the US this has resulted in reduced offspring within the productive members of society because children cost money that takes away the maximum pleasure you can experience with the money being spent on yourself rather than on a child... Europe has negative growth as does the US in the productive sector of society. Minorities are replacing the cultures in both regions because of government actions.

Because of the government the culture that developed the government is ending and being replaced by cultures that are new arrivals to the concept of government care. In a strong family unit the extended family can assist weak members or unlucky members of the family rather than relying on the government.

Every time the government enacts compassion legislation in a reality of the pecking order it becomes unmanageable...no one can sort out the deserving of being protected from the pecker. We, the government, prop up those which should be pecked causing indifference within the family and increasing the desire of self indulgence. Government can only take away freedom... all actions the government takes removes freedom at some level... the more freedom removed the more people look for pleasure with the least effort possible. The culture dies.

hot dragon · 01-03-2010, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack

All cultures have evolved over many thousands of years and family generations, many customs and laws are based on lessons learned by former generations. The father of the bride pays for the wedding and gives away the bride... the bride takes the family name of the family name she was given to...This system endured for generations and was a result of learned realities.

Government actions can break generational customs without testing the outcome of the changes they put in place. In America Social Security has changed the significance of the above custom... in Europe the change came much earlier or transitioned more quickly. The basis of the custom was preservation of the family unit... a strong family unit where parents depended on their male children to care for the parents in their old age... the female child was "given away" to another family where she supported her man and his elders in his family...likewise, the male offspring of the family gained a female mate that would assist the support of the family unit. Government social programs have made this custom obsolete and caused the breakdown of the family unit.

In Europe and America boy and girls born to a family now do not feel a responsibility to care for their parents in elder age... girls don't feel they "belong" to the new family or her husband and boys feel all they do they do for themselves and their families leaving the government and their own selfishness to live the best they can in their old age. One of the results of this government program is a breakdown of the family unit and growing self indulgence of making "me" (be it girl or boy) happy with the most pleasure possible. In Western Europe and the US this has resulted in reduced offspring within the productive members of society because children cost money that takes away the maximum pleasure you can experience with the money being spent on yourself rather than on a child... Europe has negative growth as does the US in the productive sector of society. Minorities are replacing the cultures in both regions because of government actions.

Because of the government the culture that developed the government is ending and being replaced by cultures that are new arrivals to the concept of government care. In a strong family unit the extended family can assist weak members or unlucky members of the family rather than relying on the government.

Every time the government enacts compassion legislation in a reality of the pecking order it becomes unmanageable...no one can sort out the deserving of being protected from the pecker. We, the government, prop up those which should be pecked causing indifference within the family and increasing the desire of self indulgence. Government can only take away freedom... all actions the government takes removes freedom at some level... the more freedom removed the more people look for pleasure with the least effort possible. The culture dies.

health, family, marriage, aged care, immigration, birth rates, pleasure and individual motivation. wow, these are incredibly varied and complex social phenomena with strong forces pushing each in several directions simultaneously. i would never be able to logically and factually connect all these together in only 5 paragraphs. neither can you. you state the above as fact. you need to preface every sentence in your post with "i think..", or "i rekon..", or "maybe..". sure it is a bit more difficult dealing with shades of grey, but it is better than dealing with shades of grey while thinking you are dealing with black and white.