Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Apr 2010 17:09 On Apr 7, 7:49 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <822l3eFj4...(a)mid.individual.net>, d...(a)remove.ipns.com > says... > > > > > > > Quality accounts for some of the increase but the cost shift of the > > unpaid, > > > > uninusured medical bills is far more. > > > > The problem is the "cost shift." We need to pursue those who don't pay > > > and make them pay for the services they receive. Stealing is stealing > > > regardless of the product or service. > > > Kommie can comment more authoratively on this matter than you or I can. > > But....I suspect that if somebody walks in uninsured, the hospital will be > > aggressive in collecting the debt, since insured patients will be the norm. > > If the individual mandate works, we're talking 3 million uninsured vs. 30 > > million. That's a lot of bad debt off the books. > > There is not economic driver to buy insurance ahead of time. We are > finding out the the IRS has not method of enforcement as long as you owe > them money, even $1 each year on your federal tax return. > > And, even when someone is in court for failure to pay their penalty the > judge will look at them and see that they have a $10 an hour job and > that they can't afford the 2% penalty. Is the judge going to throw that > person in jail for 5 years. Then if someone of means is before the same > judge for the same failure to pay the penalty what will the judge do? If > both people are not treated in the same manner then the 14th amendment > kicks in. > > This whole Health Care Reform thing has turned out to be the worst piece > of legislation cobbled together behind the locked doors of the Speakers > office and the Senate majority leaders office. > > Life is hard, life isn't fair and sometimes the bear eats you. The thing of it is is that we will all spend a lot of health care money. The idea that some large bulk of healthy people will pool resources to pay for the rare catastrophe is a 100% invalid approach to health care. Health care has been a great growth industry for several decades now. People are in fact consuming more and more health care, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. What is wrong here is the notion that health care is somehow free. It's not; you have to pay for it. Right now, we pay through insurance companies; but this is, for any situation other than the rare health catalepsy, an idiotic way to pay for health care, although not as bad as paying through the government. Sooner or later, one way or another people will have to realize they need to pay for their own routine health care themselves. Doctor visits, pills, whatever...broken bones, diabetes treatments, are all well within an ordinary person's ability to pay, and over time for most people will represent far less than they pay for housing...and what is more important...quality of health or quality of housing? Routine health care cannot be offered through insurance companies, it's too expensive to do it that way..and as it is even more expensive through government, that route too has to fail. We can subsidize the poor, and buy health insurance for catastrophic health issues and then pay for the rest ourselves; making our own decisions on health care, and being responsible for the consequences. You want a big house at the expense of health care? That's your choice, and you, not society, should have to deal with the consequences.
From: dene on 7 Apr 2010 17:36 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:b8aba41f-a9a0-4585-a237-da3a4daf95f5(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... The thing of it is is that we will all spend a lot of health care money. The idea that some large bulk of healthy people will pool resources to pay for the rare catastrophe is a 100% invalid approach to health care. Health care has been a great growth industry for several decades now. People are in fact consuming more and more health care, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. What is wrong here is the notion that health care is somehow free. It's not; you have to pay for it. Right now, we pay through insurance companies; but this is, for any situation other than the rare health catalepsy, an idiotic way to pay for health care, although not as bad as paying through the government. Sooner or later, one way or another people will have to realize they need to pay for their own routine health care themselves. Doctor visits, pills, whatever...broken bones, diabetes treatments, are all well within an ordinary person's ability to pay, and over time for most people will represent far less than they pay for housing...and what is more important...quality of health or quality of housing? Routine health care cannot be offered through insurance companies, it's too expensive to do it that way..and as it is even more expensive through government, that route too has to fail. We can subsidize the poor, and buy health insurance for catastrophic health issues and then pay for the rest ourselves; making our own decisions on health care, and being responsible for the consequences. You want a big house at the expense of health care? That's your choice, and you, not society, should have to deal with the consequences. ------------------------------------------------------------------ You're talking about self insuring and that trend is already happening. The average insurance plan is $1000 deductible. Self insuring the routine doesn't impact premiums that much. We're only talking about a $120 office visit bill. It's the catastrophic hospital bill that hits home, especially since a significant portion of it goes toward the uninsured's unpaid medical bills. Eliminate that from the equation and the result will be stable premiums, as you see with other types of insurance. -Greg
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Apr 2010 17:36 On Apr 7, 5:36 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:b8aba41f-a9a0-4585-a237-da3a4daf95f5(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > The thing of it is is that we will all spend a lot of health care > money. The idea that some large bulk of healthy people will pool > resources to pay for the rare catastrophe is a 100% invalid approach > to health care. > > Health care has been a great growth industry for several decades now. > People are in fact consuming more and more health care, and there is > absolutely nothing wrong with this. What is wrong here is the notion > that health care is somehow free. It's not; you have to pay for it. > > Right now, we pay through insurance companies; but this is, for any > situation other than the rare health catalepsy, an idiotic way to pay > for health care, although not as bad as paying through the government. > > Sooner or later, one way or another people will have to realize they > need to pay for their own routine health care themselves. Doctor > visits, pills, whatever...broken bones, diabetes treatments, are all > well within an ordinary person's ability to pay, and over time for > most people will represent far less than they pay for housing...and > what is more important...quality of health or quality of housing? > > Routine health care cannot be offered through insurance companies, > it's too expensive to do it that way..and as it is even more expensive > through government, that route too has to fail. > > We can subsidize the poor, and buy health insurance for catastrophic > health issues and then pay for the rest ourselves; making our own > decisions on health care, and being responsible for the consequences. > You want a big house at the expense of health care? That's your > choice, and you, not society, should have to deal with the > consequences. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > You're talking about self insuring and that trend is already happening. The > average insurance plan is $1000 deductible. Self insuring the routine > doesn't impact premiums that much. We're only talking about a $120 office > visit bill. It's the catastrophic hospital bill that hits home, especially > since a significant portion of it goes toward the uninsured's unpaid medical > bills. Eliminate that from the equation and the result will be stable > premiums, as you see with other types of insurance. > > -Greg IMHO, we need to go to something like $5,000 and $10,000 deductibles. No co-pays, nothing like that. It just seems to me that we need to get to the point where people realize that health care is something you have to pay for. There are no free Dr. visits! FWIW, the spell checker is acting weird today!
From: Carbon on 7 Apr 2010 18:05 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote: > Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks > newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox > News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that? Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance. On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality.
From: dene on 7 Apr 2010 19:04
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks > > newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox > > News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that? > > Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance. > > On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality. I don't see how you can count Fox as fluff. They interview both sides, which is something you don't see with Rachel or MSNBC. -Greg |