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

[BSmith1068]

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.

Not at all. Look at my post right above yours. Ideally this nation would have single payer health care funded by a progressive tax on the entire population. No insurance company necessary. No health care tied to employment. No crippling debt burden to those without proper insurance.

 

[timtofly]

Not at all. Look at my post right above yours. Ideally this nation would have single payer health care funded by a progressive tax on the entire population. No insurance company necessary. No health care tied to employment. No crippling debt burden to those without proper insurance.

We are now going to tax those who do not even work?

 

[Cutlass]

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.

So you're protecting the guilty against their victims, even though that won't have any benefit to the rest of the people in terms of lower costs? Just abolishing fundamental Constitutional rights and stripping away private property for the hell of it?

 

[BSmith1068]

We are now going to tax those who do not even work?

Come off it. You know my position as I have stated it already in this thread – a mere 6 posts ago:

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]

Come off it. You know my position as I have stated it already in this thread – a mere 6 posts ago:

I apologize for driving you into a corner, but remember I am the selfish one.

Personally I do not think that taxing everyone is going to solve the problem, and it has nothing to do with me unwilling to help others. It has to do with logistics and figuring out how to allow those without the ability to have a fighting chance.

The problem is the government is not the answer. The more responsibility we give the government, the more waste there is. If someone can figure out how to cut the waste, then we may get some where.

BTW, there is a fine line between limited government and anarchism, personal responsibility.

 

[BSmith1068]

I apologize for driving you into a corner, but remember I am the selfish one.

Personally I do not think that taxing everyone is going to solve the problem, and it has nothing to do with me unwilling to help others. It has to do with logistics and figuring out how to allow those without the ability to have a fighting chance.

The problem is the government is not the answer. The more responsibility we give the government, the more waste there is. If someone can figure out how to cut the waste, then we may get some where.

BTW, there is a fine line between limited government and anarchism, personal responsibility.

A Single payer system would eliminate several layers of the current bureaucracy that is established in today’s health care system. No more insurance companies, billing is much more streamlined as there is only one place to send the bill, no more collections for bad debt, the list goes on. Simply saying that government=more bureaucracy is not accurate in all situations.

And the only thing you have to apologize for is not reading the thread and nit-picking.

 

[Antilogic]

The problem is the government is not the answer. The more responsibility we give the government, the more waste there is. If someone can figure out how to cut the waste, then we may get some where.

Is this a joke?

 

[timtofly]

Is this a joke?

Have you sat down and read every word in every bill, that has passed?

 

[peter grimes]

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.

When you say things like this I can't help but think that you have very little real-world experience.

Do you have any idea how much health insurance costs employers?

It's not a matter of 'not budgeting insurance into the cost of operation'. If they did, their overhead would increase by about $400/worker-week. So if you're an employer (job creator ) and you're bidding on a project that's going to take 2 months, and you employ 10 people, your out-the-door overhead is minimum ~$10,000 higher than all your competitors who don't offer health insurance.

Seriously, it seems like you have no idea how much money is involved here. Health insurance can be close to 40% of the employee's compensation, depending on the market and plan. And I'm not even talking about so-called 'cadillac plans'. Full disclosure - I have a union-provided cadillac plan, but I'm a vocal supporter of single payer UHC.

 

[BSmith1068]

Seriously, it seems like you have no idea how much money is involved here. Health insurance can be close to 40% of the employee's compensation, depending on the market and plan. And I'm not even talking about so-called 'cadillac plans'. Full disclosure - I have a union-provided cadillac plan, but I'm a vocal supporter of single payer UHC.

Interesting enough, here is an article from today on CNN Money:

Family health care costs to exceed $20,000 this year

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Three days of Supreme Court arguments have left the fate of the 2010 health care reform law uncertain. What is certain, however, is that health care costs are continuing to eat away at consumers' budgets.

The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7% from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc. In 2002, the cost was just $9,235, the firm said.

…

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/29/pf/healthcare-costs/index.htm

 

[GinandTonic]

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.

Yup general taxation is the way to pay for the bugger. Most efficient, fairest all around best. If morally you will not refuse people treatment there is no other sane outcome since the whole concept of insurance is a farce.

We are now going to tax those who do not even work?

Thats either idiotic or willfully misconstruing his point. Neither reflects particularly well on you.

 

[timtofly]

When you say things like this I can't help but think that you have very little real-world experience.

Do you have any idea how much health insurance costs employers?

It's not a matter of 'not budgeting insurance into the cost of operation'. If they did, their overhead would increase by about $400/worker-week. So if you're an employer (job creator ) and you're bidding on a project that's going to take 2 months, and you employ 10 people, your out-the-door overhead is minimum ~$10,000 higher than all your competitors who don't offer health insurance.

Seriously, it seems like you have no idea how much money is involved here. Health insurance can be close to 40% of the employee's compensation, depending on the market and plan. And I'm not even talking about so-called 'cadillac plans'. Full disclosure - I have a union-provided cadillac plan, but I'm a vocal supporter of single payer UHC.

Then can you explain the difference in what I said and what you said?

If no one works because their employer got outbid in a job, there is no money to pay for health insurance. It does not matter if there is insurance or not, if the cost of everything goes up to allow insurance. If you think that the government ADDING another tax will decrease what people pay, it seems like fuzzy math to me.

 

[GinandTonic]

If no one works because their employer got outbid in a job, there is no money to pay for health insurance. It does not matter if there is insurance or not, if the cost of everything goes up to allow insurance. If you think that the government ADDING another tax will decrease what people pay, it seems like fuzzy math to me.

Because in the uk the gov can do it for, near as dam it, half the price.

HC can cost half as much when paid for universally as when paid by insurance. Thats eight cents in every dollar you earn.

 

[Integral]

Here's how we get health care to work.

Each year,
1. Everyone pays 5% of their income into a national pool
2. Everyone pays 10% of their income into a personal Health Savings Account (HSA)

If you get sick, you first run down your HSA. Everything above that is paid out of the big national pool.
If you don't get sick, you get the 10% back.

No insurance companies, no employer-provided insurance, no job lock, etc.

Pros
- Everyone has skin in the game for small-scale coverage
- Nobody pays more than 10% of their income in health expenditures in any year
- Single-payer for the big stuff


In addition, we slap sin taxes on the trash we eat, and use the revenues to help fund the system.

 

[timtofly]

Because in the uk the gov can do it for, near as dam it, half the price.

HC can cost half as much when paid for universally as when paid by insurance. Thats eight cents in every dollar you earn.

If the US Gov. was not as bloated as the UK?

Here's how we get health care to work.

Each year,
1. Everyone pays 5% of their income into a national pool
2. Everyone pays 10% of their income into a personal Health Savings Account (HSA)

If you get sick, you first run down your HSA. Everything above that is paid out of the big national pool.
If you don't get sick, you get the 10% back.

No insurance companies, no employer-provided insurance, no job lock, etc.

Pros
- Everyone has skin in the game for small-scale coverage
- Nobody pays more than 10% of their income in health expenditures in any year
- Single-payer for the big stuff


In addition, we slap sin taxes on the trash we eat, and use the revenues to help fund the system.

This I have no problem with. It is the way bills go through congress these days that concerns me.

I am not even against a socialistic government. I am against trying to create a socialistic government in a capitalistic environment.

Although there may not be that many capitalistic individuals left? Who knows?

 

[Antilogic]

Have you sat down and read every word in every bill, that has passed?

A pathetic and irrelevant response, since it's not my job to do so. Do you seriously believe that a large national unit cannot, under any circumstance, for anything at all, ever provide a service as effectively as a market? Do economics of scale simply disappear when we refer to governments? That's a pretty huge claim that I don't think anyone has quantitatively substantiated.

You are welcome to try and convince me otherwise.

 

[timtofly]

A pathetic and irrelevant response, since it's not my job to do so. Do you seriously believe that a large national unit cannot, under any circumstance, for anything at all, ever provide a service as effectively as a market? Do economics of scale simply disappear when we refer to governments? That's a pretty huge claim that I don't think anyone has quantitatively substantiated.

You are welcome to try and convince me otherwise.

We will never know. The market has past and there is no return.

 

[Quintillus]

It is somewhat gaming the system to only buy insurance after you find out you have something... it'd be kind of like it you could buy retroactive car insurance and you bought it a day after you crashed your car. So, he does kind of have a point from the whole not-playing-fair perspective.

On the other hand, it's not exactly a high-morals stance.

What does it exactly take to amend the constitution or to make extensive changes ?
I mean you can't really keep a two hhundred year old document keep you back like that. the founders should have had more foresight to take technological and cultural changes into account.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I believe the most popular (exclusive?) way that's been used so far is 2/3 of both houses of Congress request it, and 3/4 of state legislatures approve it.

What are you, Botswana ?

Botswana actually has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and is a relatively wealthy country now despite being very poor back in the '60s. It's really only because of the very high rates of HIV that Botswana has major healthcare cost difficulties; if the HIV rate were similar to the U.S., it might be a good comparison (on level ground).

 

[peter grimes]

Then can you explain the difference in what I said and what you said?

Sure! It's really very straightforward. You said:

"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."

and I responded with:

"It's not a matter of 'not budgeting insurance into the cost of operation'. If they did, their overhead would increase by about $400/worker-week. So if you're an employer (job creator ) and you're bidding on a project that's going to take 2 months, and you employ 10 people, your out-the-door overhead is minimum ~$10,000 [EDIT: arithmetic fail - should be ~80,000] higher than all your competitors who don't offer health insurance."

The difference is that you're assuming the company operates in a vacuum free from the forces of the market (oh the irony!). If you are a client, and there are 4 firms bidding on your RFQ, and you find that 3 are coming in at 75k-85k, while the last one is pegged at 150k, why should I believe that you'd do the christian thing and go with the one that costs the most, but also provides health insurance to its employees and their families? Based on everything you've said in this thread we're lead to the conclusion that you think businesses should only provide health insurance if their consciences demand it, while disregarding the cold hard economic impossibilities that stem from that view.

Christianity and capitalism - let along libertarianism / Randyanism - are mutually exclusive. You can be one or the other. You MUST choose.

 

[timtofly]

Sure! It's really very straightforward. You said:

"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."

and I responded with:

"It's not a matter of 'not budgeting insurance into the cost of operation'. If they did, their overhead would increase by about $400/worker-week. So if you're an employer (job creator ) and you're bidding on a project that's going to take 2 months, and you employ 10 people, your out-the-door overhead is minimum ~$10,000 [EDIT: arithmetic fail - should be ~80,000] higher than all your competitors who don't offer health insurance."

The difference is that you're assuming the company operates in a vacuum free from the forces of the market (oh the irony!). If you are a client, and there are 4 firms bidding on your RFQ, and you find that 3 are coming in at 75k-85k, while the last one is pegged at 150k, why should I believe that you'd do the christian thing and go with the one that costs the most, but also provides health insurance to its employees and their families? Based on everything you've said in this thread we're lead to the conclusion that you think businesses should only provide health insurance if their consciences demand it, while disregarding the cold hard economic impossibilities that stem from that view.

Christianity and capitalism - let along libertarianism / Randyanism - are mutually exclusive. You can be one or the other. You MUST choose.

This being "Christian" and all free-market economy, IF those people working for a company that did not provide insurance, may simply leave and that company would go defunct.

Finding a company that paid insurance is just as "free-market" of a concept as anything else.

I think that every company should provide insurance. Where we differ is you want the government to force them instead of the market. The thought that they should do it for moral reasons, never crossed my mind.

The reality of the matter is the "individual" no longer has a choice in anything. It is not easy to quit a job, without a prospect for another one. I have even had Christian employers who did not pay nor offer any benefits. So not sure why you think that I would expect any one to do things out of a moral obligation.

The only thing that I am trying to point out is, the current government is in no shape to demand anything. If we were a socialist society, it may be a different story. I do not see social government getting any where much in a free-market.

BTW, I am not against abolishing the free-market either. I think that a lot of people may object to loosing their freedoms, but I am not one of them.