Mitt "No insurance for uninsured with pre-existing conditions"

[timtofly]

Wow. Just, wow. You have managed to misconstrue my comments and jump right into the deep end my friend. One comment: Government does not equal Military. The rest of this paragraph is so far removed from any kind of reality that I don’t really know where to begin. It certainly doesn’t address my comments in the slightest.



If people are not able to trust others without always having to look over their back, it is because of attitudes like you expressed earlier. An “as long as I get mine” attitude shows that you are not looking out for others, but only your own (short term) best interest. Kinda hard to trust someone who’s sole interest is themselves, don’t you think?



I suggest you look into this some more…

So, if I am selfish, will you admit that NHI is the socialistic way to provide healthcare? It takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

 

[Leoreth]

Just for the record, as a conservative, I believe that coverage should be available at affordable rates for persons with preexisting conditions.

I'm eager to hear how you think this will work. Giving medical treatment to people who previously didn't contribute doesn't sound like a typical conservative position to me.

 

[peter grimes]

Medical coverage, or insurance coverage?

It's impossible to insure people with pre-existing conditions at affordable rates. If you force coverage at below the expected cost of care, that's no longer insurance.

This an important distinction, one that I'm not too certain of. Are there systems that don't use insurance? I mean, any UHC systems?

 

[Cutlass]

Not a single one of your statements seem to make sense. Its as if you and I are not really part of the same species.

Oh, that's very, very true. I'm a patriotic American.

 

[Core Imposter]

Medical coverage, or insurance coverage?

It's impossible to insure people with pre-existing conditions at affordable rates. If you force coverage at below the expected cost of care, that's no longer insurance.

I think we shift those people to an insurance pool and shift costs to the entire universe while requiring high deductible plans across the board or at least taxing plans that exceed reasonable limits. You can't have a market if people don't pay for health care. Costs will always spiral.

Tort reform and price competition would be sufficient to stop the spiraling costs. And necessary. Single payer, UHC style, will never work. It just shifts the bubble to a higher level, a level where there is no fiscal accountability and current accounts are processed with borrowed money and where bankruptcy is an inevitable outcome.

We should fix the problem not punt it. There is no free lunch.

Keep in mind that when a democratic government funds something it always forms a bubble. Bubbles pop.

With the affordable care act we are setting up all these bodies to essentially dictate patient care with the idea that this will control costs. Congress punts to elite boards rather than making tough decisions. Palin scream death panels. But no, these boards will become politicized over time and will not make tough decisions. Costs will continue to rise.

Tough decisions can only be found when the individual makes them out of his own pocket.

Pointing to countries where UHC has been adopted and is operating as proof of feasibility is nonsense. Most of those countries are operating on borrowed money and most have there security needs subsidized by taxpayers from other countries (NATO for example) and of course, those other countries are operating on borrowed money.

Money is elastic but elasticity has limits. If something cannot go on forever it will stop.

 

[GinandTonic]

So, if I am selfish, will you admit that NHI is the socialistic way to provide healthcare? It takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

National Health Insurance would be a poll tax. Not at all socalist.

 

[Zelig]

I think we shift those people to an insurance pool and shift costs to the entire universe while requiring high deductible plans across the board or at least taxing plans that exceed reasonable limits. You can't have a market if people don't pay for health care. Costs will always spiral.

Tort reform and price competition would be sufficient to stop the spiraling costs. And necessary. Single payer, UHC style, will never work. It just shifts the bubble to a higher level, a level where there is no fiscal accountability and current accounts are processed with borrowed money and where bankruptcy is an inevitable outcome.

We should fix the problem not punt it. There is no free lunch.

Keep in mind that when a democratic government funds something it always forms a bubble. Bubbles pop.

With the affordable care act we are setting up all these bodies to essentially dictate patient care with the idea that this will control costs. Congress punts to elite boards rather than making tough decisions. Palin scream death panels. But no, these boards will become politicized over time and will not make tough decisions. Costs will continue to rise.

Tough decisions can only be found when the individual makes them out of his own pocket.

Pointing to countries where UHC has been adopted and is operating as proof of feasibility is nonsense. Most of those countries are operating on borrowed money and most have there security needs subsidized by taxpayers from other countries (NATO for example) and of course, those other countries are operating on borrowed money.

Money is elastic but elasticity has limits. If something cannot go on forever it will stop.

What?

 

[Leoreth]

MisterCooper shoehorning his "all is borrowed and fated to fail" rhetoric into this topic, too. Move on, nothing to see here.

 

[JollyRoger]

I agree that tort reform is necesssary. A person injured by a doctor or wrongfully denied a claim by an insurer is too limited in seeking redress and has too many hoops to jump through. There needs to be reform in the laws that impede the claims of the injured and wrongfully denied.

 

[timtofly]

National Health Insurance would be a poll tax. Not at all socalist.

Then the Prez should all it National Health Poll Tax and sell it that way. At least that would be more honest. Insurance is a gamble that nothing will happen. Collecting money to provide healthcare is a tax.

 

[Antilogic]

I agree that tort reform is necesssary. A person injured by a doctor or wrongfully denied a claim by an insurer is too limited in seeking redress and has too many hoops to jump through. There needs to be reform in the laws that impede the claims of the injured and wrongfully denied.

One of the problems with the vagueness of the word "reform"--I'm all for tax reform, tort reform, and so on. But I definitely don't agree with some people's ideas on what those reforms entail.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Get the government out of the way and the people (market forces) can easily solve the problem.

Market forces are geared towards highest profits to guarantee continuity. How does that solve the problem of affordable healthcare? The market does not care for total coverage if it isn't profitable.

 

[BSmith1068]

So, if I am selfish, will you admit that NHI is the socialistic way to provide healthcare? It takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

National Health Insurance would be a poll tax. Not at all socalist.

Ideally it would be a progressive tax based on ability to pay. Still not at all socialist.

 

[Cutlass]

Tort reform really means that the advocate is opposed to the concept of people being held responsible for their own actions.

 

[GinandTonic]

Ideally it would be a progressive tax based on ability to pay. Still not at all socialist.

If it is national and progressive it would just be a ring-fenced area of general taxation?

 

[Core Imposter]

Okay, just to be clear on tort reform, I support limiting the ability to bring actions and limiting the amounts of awards.

Penalities for fraud should be exponitially increased, not just in health care, but throughout our system.

These reforms would get us on the road to sustainable costs.

 

[JollyRoger]

Okay, just to be clear on tort reform, I support limiting the ability to bring actions and limiting the amounts of awards.

So if a doctor gives you a castration rather than a vascetomy, you want it to be more difficult for you to sue and a low limit on the damages you collect?

 

[BSmith1068]

If it is national and progressive it would just be a ring-fenced area of general taxation?

If I understand your question correctly, yes. Ideally it would be a national progressive tax tied to income/ability to pay that would be dedicated to funding the health care costs of the nation.

 

[timtofly]

Ideally it would be a progressive tax based on ability to pay. Still not at all socialist.

Are you saying that only those who pay can benefit from the insurance?

While there are those who work and do not pay for insurance, that is because the company does not budget insurance into their cost of operation. I am pretty sure that every one who works would like their employers to allow insurance. For every person who works there are those who they support who do not work for their own insurance. The whole issue is to pay for those who cannot do it themselves. If the company did not offset the cost of insurance, then people would be taking home a lot less money to spend on other things.

 

[peter grimes]

Okay, just to be clear on tort reform, I support limiting the ability to bring actions and limiting the amounts of awards.

My brother was an attorney dealing with medical malpractice and insurance stuff. I don't know anything about the situation myself, but the way he explained it to me was this:

When you hear 'tort reform' and 'frivolous lawsuit' you should replace those terms with 'limited corporate liability' and 'no standing'.

He explained that the Frivolous Lawsuit stuff was a red herring, as there are several intermediate steps between a plaintiff claiming wrongdoing and a court hearing. Anything that didn't merit further consideration would advance to step 2. Apply filter, rinse & repeat. Eventually, after several of these filters, the plaintiff may get his day in court. But that's part of the problem - the system is already stacked so heavily in favor of Money & Power - Jane Plaintiff has to take time off work (hard enough just for everyday stuff, let alone litigation!), jump through numerous hoops, just to get to the point where a legal professional can say 'OK, this might have merit. Let's see if we can do something for you, can you be patient for the next 3 years?'

Tort Reform is a buzz-word that is designed to imply that the people representing Classes involved with Class-Action Lawsuits are only in it for the money. Think of the guy who Erin Brokovitch worked for. Actually, that might be a bad example, since he didn't have the D.C. charm of Jonathan Edwards. But the problem is, similar to Frivolous Lawsuits, if these cases have no merit they wouldn't make it anywhere near a courtroom. Lawyers, despite the popular impression, are lots of things - but they're not stupid. Tort reform is a distraction, designed by the staff attorneys and PR firms that represent the Insurance Industry, the goal of which is to make common citizens believe we're the victims of greedy corporations neighbors.

And as far as medical care intersects with tort reform, let's do my favorite experiment and look at what other nations do. What are the systems in place elsewhere? Do they have similar problems? Similar costs?