Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2008, 03:09 PM   #361 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.
We have a high deductible plan as well, nice that the government would tell me I don't have the proper coverage.

Forcing people to get insurance. It makes sense for auto insurance since it protects the other drivers, but here, its just more fascism with a happy face.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 04:33 AM   #362 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: a little to the right
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.
Yeah this is the failure of mandates. It wouldn't be much better if the government got into the mixed payor market. This is also why state governments can't work. Massachusetts is just too small to negotiate effectively with the insurance industry, and way too small to fund their own insurance plan universally. This is what you'll see if you keep voting for Republicans though.

Single payor or nationalized industry are the only two schemes that have consistently succeeded in achieving universal health care.
__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche
pr0f3n is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:02 AM   #363 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
Single payor or nationalized industry are the only two schemes that have consistently succeeded in achieving universal health care.
And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:17 AM   #364 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans. The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Nothing says 'socialist democrat' any louder than someone wanting to force you to participate in something that costs you your money to pay for someone elses interests and then wants to jail you for refusing.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:37 AM   #365 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
Yeah this is the failure of mandates. It wouldn't be much better if the government got into the mixed payor market. This is also why state governments can't work. Massachusetts is just too small to negotiate effectively with the insurance industry, and way too small to fund their own insurance plan universally. This is what you'll see if you keep voting for Republicans though.
I don't think it is just the Republicans. Hillary's plan forces you to buy a policy from private insurance or the government and Obama's plan is similar except you can choose to be uninsured. The devil is in the details which we know little about at this stage but both of them are keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

Mass. is in the process of actually implementing their policy so we know most of the details now. If I understand the situation they are already backing down from requiring many middle class people to buy state approved insurance because they cannot afford it and it would cost too much to subsidize them.

I have a feeling these plans will be more of the same especially after the lobiests work their money magic on congress. The poor will be OK with government assistance and the wealthy will be OK since they have great insurance and resources. It is the working poor and middle class who are most at risk of losing everything from a sudden illness or accident.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:55 AM   #366 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I must be lookling at different plans.

As I have read them, both the Clinton and Obama plan allow (and encourage) those currently covered through an employer-based plan to remain with the plan if it is satisfactory.

Thats about 180+ million who, for the most part, would not be affected by either candidate's plan.

And both Clinton and Obama plans would cover the uninsured based, in part, on the federal employees and/or congressional plan model and, in part, on health pools for small businesses who currently do not provide coverage for employees. Neither is a government run program, but a program that offers choice from among a variety of private providers.

added:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.
Flock here?

Not likely. The last stats I recall seeing reported that medical visas to the US have been declining dramatically for the last 10 years or so while "medical tourism" has become a boom industry, with countries like Costa Rica, Singapore, Phillipines the greatest destinations.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 02-04-2008 at 11:07 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:53 AM   #367 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.
Odd that you would say that.

There's a time what you're saying would be 100% true, not so much these days. There was also a time when a car built in the US would be considered hands down the best world wide, no so much these days.

People from the US are in fact flocking to other countries for more and more medical treatments every year. Medical tourism as it's known is a billion dollar plus a year business. India alone projects they'll be doing 2.2 billion a year by 2012.

People from the US seeking care in other countries are likely doing so because the cost of the care is 10%-25% of what it would cost in the US.

While people from countries that have socialized medicine are generally engaging in medical tourism to avoid long lines and wait times.

I moved to Mexico last year and a part of my determining factor in moving was medical care. I'm finding the quality of care is often better then what I was getting in the states and the cost is less then my deducible and co-pays back in Oregon. And yes I had health insurance from a private provider.

Here's an article from the University of Delaware that covers some of the trends:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/m...ism072505.html
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Last edited by Tully Mars; 02-04-2008 at 11:59 AM.. Reason: typo
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 01:36 PM   #368 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
And both Clinton and Obama plans would cover the uninsured based, in part, on the federal employees and/or congressional plan model and, in part, on health pools for small businesses who currently do not provide coverage for employees. Neither is a government run program, but a program that offers choice from among a variety of private providers.
That will be great if we can buy the same plan that they have for the same as they pay out of pocket with all the bells and whistles like dental and vision. Plus they can't charge more for high risks. With the insurance companies in the loop, I'll believe it when I see it.

I suspect that when we know all the details that they will determine it is too expensive like Mass. and working people who do not have employer furnished insurance will be unable to afford it. Heck, today those of us who have to buy our own can't even claim our health insurance costs as a deduction. The poor already get subsidized.

These polititians get a lot of money from the health care, pharma and insurance industries so they will make out OK no matter what they come up with. I believe they are talking a good game now (with few details) in order to score points in order to get elected. Once in office reality will set in.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 06:43 PM   #369 (permalink)
Psycho
 
sprocket's Avatar
 
Location: In transit
Interesting. A study was recently published that has found "curing obesity" (ie, preventative care) actually increases medical costs... simply because patients live longer.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0050029&ct=1

Quote:
.....

Conclusions

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
Guess NHS might want to rethink their obesity programs.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.
sprocket is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 07:48 PM   #370 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
Interesting. A study was recently published that has found "curing obesity" (ie, preventative care) actually increases medical costs... simply because patients live longer.
The same argument could be made for any preventative care, the longer we live the older we get and the more health care we will use. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to have a policy of witholding care so people die young to save money. I guess there are some who might feel this is a good way to reduce the surplus population.
flstf is offline  
 

Tags
care, health, hillary, idea, nsfw


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360