From: Dinosaur_Sr on
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

"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
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
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

"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