Baraka_Guru

Aren't you supposed to consult a physician before beginning an exercise regimen?

Vicious cycle anyone?

Personally, if I didn't have access to a doctor (i.e. if I couldn't afford one), I'd be damned if I'd do any serious exercise in fear of getting injured or aggravating a latent medical problem. Oh, sure, I'd walk a lot, but I wouldn't lift weights or do intense cardio (which is far more beneficial than walking alone.)

rahl, it is quite possible that premiums will go up, but it's also possible they will remain stable. It's hard to predict. But how many reforms go untouched without refinements? If the system is broken, you fix it. You don't avoid it completely in fear of it not working they way you want it to. Most things worth doing have risks involved.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

Diet has nothing to do with class. It's a personal choice. A bushell of apples costs as much as a bag of chips, but if you choose the chips you are making a personal(bad) choice and you have to own it. Saying said person made the choice because of their class is bullshit.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

I agree that things need fixed. This bill doesn't do that, it doesn't address the high cost of care, which in turn will do nothing to the high cost of coverage.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

uh huh. nice way to avoid the issue, rahl. as if personal responsibility, location, infrastructure (groceries, transportation) and income weren't tied together in some areas (amuricans like spatial segregation as the primary expression of class stratification) more than in others.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Wow, that's pretty extreme. What about the families who are eating hot dogs, mac & cheese, and canned peas....for every meal?

Okay, assuming health care will only get more expensive. So what? Health care is important. Why not trim the military budget by 1%, and it will pay for the whole thing. Plus there would probably be enough change left over to double the education budget. (Am I exaggerating?)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

I haven't avoided anything. You, and other extreme liberals, believe that it's not the fault of the individual for the choices they make. Nobody forces a poor or rich person to buy and eat one particular type of food. So if you CHOOSE to eat poorly that is on you, not your circumstances, or lot in life. That is a cop out. There are fat and unhealthy rich people just as there are fat and unhealthy poor people. They both made the choice to not eat right and not excercise. That's fine, that's there right, but I'm not responsible for their decision

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------


The families who eat hot dogs and mac and cheese for every meal are making a concsious choice to do so. for the price of a pack of hot dogs and mac and cheese you could buy trimmed turkey breasts and broccoli. It's a choice nothing more.

As to trimming other govn't spending to pay for health reform that would be fine, and that is what they should do, but they won't. Once the govn't starts spending it's not going to cut back.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Willravel

Here comes the inherent dishonesty of capitalism. You're not paying for my preexisting condition, rahl. The medical costs across my lifetime more than pay for everything that I've ever had done and will have done even if i wasn't paying a premium. All I ask is that my preexisting condition not be simply an excuse to hike up the price of my insurance well beyond what my condition costs.

Even if that were't true, [i]this is how insurance works[i/]. We all pay into a pot in case of emergency and should something bad happen, our collective funds pay for it (minus the administrative fees to run the insurance company). If you get run over by a one horse open sleigh, I'm glad that the money we all put together will be able to keep you from bankruptcy. Why? I care about people other than myself. And that's the inherent code of "socialism".
I'm not talking about a $500,000 home, I'm talking about basic health needs. Shame on you for not seeing the difference.

rahl

Will your not looking at this objectively, your looking at it emotionally. What the insurance company pays out in your lifetime is irrelevant. It's what they could potentially have to pay out is the problem. I'm sorry if someone has a debilitating condition, but that can't be my responsibility to pay for. I don't have the money to take care of me and you at the same time, so I choose me. Just like everyother person who thinks rationally would do.

And talking about basic health needs and a $500,000 dollar house are the exact same thing when talking about insurance.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Willravel

It's an absolute bare-minimum healthcare bill, and yes it's what should be expected from a big-tent party, but it's not what I want and it's not what we need. Because we're moving too slowly on this, people that would be living under single-payer are dying under free-market. People are going bankrupt. This is not an acceptable situation and I feel I was mislead by the Democrats on the inclusion of a public option. That public option was supposed to be the step that finally got us on the road to universal healthcare, much the same as a public option has done so elsewhere.

Baraka_Guru

A box of mac & cheese (Kraft Dinner, say) made with a water (or a bit of milk if you're feeling sassy) and cheap margarine makes 4 servings at a very low cost. I imagine it would be around $1 or so. How much turkey breast and bread can you buy for $1? The last time I checked, turkey hot dogs were far cheaper than turkey breast meat, pound for pound. What do you buy when you're down to you last $5? I think canned peas are cheaper than fresh broccoli. And kids tend to like them better too.

That's the problem. But you still deal with it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

you're only looking at it from the view of money and that's not objective in the least.

dc_dux

You still havent addressed the issue that I raised in this post.

Nearly two thirds of the uninsured are not elderly, indigent, or with a pre-existing conditions - but include families with at least one able-bodiied, full time worker and nearly two-thirds are between the ages of 20-55.

Using your "simple mathematical fact is that if you increase liability you have to increase assets", I would suggest that these folks will increase assets more than liabilities.

So why are they high risk again?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

Why do these people not have insurance now? Can they not afford it or do they not qualify for it because of a pre-ex?

If they can't afford it how are they going to afford it once the bill is passed?
If it's because they have a pre-ex they will then be eligible but their premiums will be higher than someone who doesn't.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

I'm looking at it from a logical financial standpoint, which is objective.
Health care is expensive, I can't afford to take care of you on top of myself, so I choose me. That is logical and rational

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Baraka_Guru

No decision is ever purely rational. This aspect of the discussion, though interesting, isn't very relevant. Looking at this from a purely financial standpoint is shortsighted at the very least. This is a social issue as well.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

Damn...if you work in the industry, you should know why they dont have insurance now.

Its simple....because they work for small businesses where subsidized insurance is not offered. It has little or nothing to do with pre-existing conditions or adverse selection. These are hard-working people in the prime of life who cant afford insurance on the current open market.

The intent of the Insurance Exchange is to offer affordable insurance to these workers, individually or pooled through a larger group of employers .

And you are sill are dodging the question of how these millions of hard working folks are "high risk" by continuing to raise the red herring of pre-existing conditions.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

[QUOTE=Baraka_Guru;2743829]. Looking at this from a purely financial standpoint is shortsighted at the very least. QUOTE]

and this is why we have a rediculous deficit. runaway rampent spending by the govn't with no thought to the consequences. That is not a dem or rep attack, it's just how govn't works. it it were run like any other business, it would have to balance expenses with revenue, not just spend because it feels like it.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Willravel

Can you list other logical standpoints from which to view healthcare?

Baraka_Guru

But this isn't what the bill is proposing. It isn't simply spending for the heck of it.

And even China is working towards getting health care access to their rural poor through reform and a co-op system.

Isn't the U.S. starting to fall behind when it comes to health care access? If the nation keeps humming and hawing over this, you'll never have anything remotely resembling accessible health care or universal health care.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

People need access to healthcare, which everyone currently has. The problem is the cost of that Healthcare. There's no other way to look at it at this point. This bill doesn't address the cost of treatment, nor does it address the cost of insurance. So it is a complete failure. Without fixing the out of control costs of treatment, you can't bring down the cost of coverage, be it privately owned or single payor.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Still dodging the fact that the vast majority of the uninsured are not high risk as you claim (with no data) but simply dont have access to affordadle insurance w/o that employer subsidy that nearly 200 million of their fellow citizens receive.

The bill creates a larger pool, Insurance Exchange, to drive down the cost to small businesses and their employees and through which these folks are likely to contribute more than they take out.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

I'm not dodging anything. Unless you have access to these peoples medical records you have no way of knowing that they have no health issues or are not high risk. I am assuming they are, rightly or wrongly doesn't matter. If they are high risk premiums will go up. If they are not high risk premiums are still going to go up with the inclusion of out of pocket maximum ceilings being put in place. My point is that no matter what, with this current bill premiums will go up.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

I got it now. You are assuming they are all high risk who will take out more than they contribute and, as a result, premiums will go up...which defies every objective study on the issue.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

No, premiums won't go up based on the assumption. They will go up based on the health information on the application. They will also go up since the insurance company will have greater exposure with the implementation of an out of pocket maximum ceiling.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Your entire argument is based on assumptions and IMO, not very objective.

Thanks, but I will stick with the studies by health policy experts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

It's not based on assumption, it's based on math. It's also based on insurance principals, something all of you are ignoring

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

math is not based on assumptions? on what planet?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

rahl

If anyone here can explain mathematicaly how an insurance company can have the funds to pay out claims if the reserves aren't there without raising premiums I'm all ears. Otherwise none of you have any ground to stand on in this argument. If Insurance companies have to pay out more money they will have to take in more money in order to pay. That is reality, ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

You are assuming that these 30+ million hard-working folks in the prime of life will take out more than they put in at a far greater rate than those currently with employer-based insurance.

And offer nothing to support that assumption.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

You are assuming that these 30+million people have no medical issues or health problems, which without access to their medical records that's a claim you can't make.

I conceded that I'm making an assumption they are more than likely unhealthy, but I also demonstrated that premiums are going to go up regardless if these people are healthy or not because of the out of pocket maximum ceiling. As well as the pre-ex eclsusions. Even if alot of those people are perfectly healthy, the very sick people will more than likely offset the risk pool.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

No...I am assuming that their medical issues may only be marginal worse than those 200 million presently with insurance. These folks are not elderly or indigent'. In addtion, I am also excluding kids (higher risk) of these families, many of whom are covered by SCHIP.

You are assuming they most or all are high risk and/or with pre-existing conditions....or that most will reach a high-level of out of pocket expenses (that would be capped), rather than contribute more than they take out.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

The health insurance companies should be run by these two. If you watch The Biggest Loser next week, you will see the problem. Then in 11 weeks, they fix the problem, and they won't have high healthcare costs. But, then the doctors wouldn't get paid as much, and the drug companies would lose out too.

But where was the healthcare insurance industry when the government banned trans-fats, put in anti-smoking laws, lower pollution, etc... The whole scheme is that if they make their profits, with growth for their stockholders, they are happy. They don't care about limiting coverage, adding fine print to what is and isn't covered, raising premiums for everyone, or whatever else and that is the problem with the current system. They need to start working on reducing their expenditures by making society healthier. And I would have no problem if they would fine people for their unhealthy activities if they aren't taking steps to fix them, but they shouldn't charge me more if some random unexpected health issue comes up.

rahl

Insurance companies are just like every single other business in the world. Their goal is to provide a service for a profit. If you didn't read the application to know what isn't covered that's your fault. If you feel strongly enough about it you could try to sue the agent who wrote you the policy but it will almost certainly get tossed out because you signed on the dotted line agreeing to the terms of the policy.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ASU2003

I have no choice in who my employer picks. And why would they limit what is covered except to scam people into paying for something expecting it to work when they need it?

rahl

You do have the choice of to pick your own individual policy. And the insurance company isn't scamming anybody. You know exactly what is covered at the time of application. You even get an explanation of benefits mailed home to you. It's not the insurance companies fault if you didn't read it.

As to why they limit coverage, As with all insurances(I'll use auto for an example) If you have a nice new car that you crashed into a firehydrant, but didn't have insurance at the time, how can you expect an insurance company to pay for the damage that was caused before you were covered with them. You can't, same is true with health insurance right now. Now if you want to have them pay for something that is pre-existing then you are going to have to live with the increased premium that the company will need in order to have the money in reserves for claims.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ASU2003

I did read it, so what if I want something changed? There is nothing I can do unless I complain to my HR dept, and they work on it next year. But that is a long shot.

And paying $1000 with my company vs. $4000 by going on my own, yeah that's not happening. That is why the public option or the health insurance exchange looked good, since I could team up with other people outside of my company.

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

And stop using the car insurance thing. I have been covered since I was born, yet I know if I got really sick, they would try and reduce my benefits (or show me the fine print where it was excluded), say the paperwork wasn't filled out right, say that procedure wasn't pre-approved, or whatever else to reduce the amount they have to pay out.

rahl

THE GOVN"T WON'T LET YOU CHANGE IT not the insurance company. If your employer paid health insurnace is being pre-taxed(section 125 regulated by the IRS) which almost every single business now participates in the IRS won't let you make any changes except for a qualifying event(marriage, divorce, birth of child etc.) until open enrollment time. It has nothing to do with insurance companies.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------


I'm using car insurance because it operates the same way but nobody is up in arms over it. Insurance companies can not currently deny you coverage just because you get sick, they never have been able to nor will they be able to, as long as you had no gap in coverage. And if you didn't fill out the paperwork right you can't expect to be paid. If something is covered they are obligated by law to pay out the covered expense provided the claim is filed

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

I get that it's simple math, rahl. In the simplest possible terms, an insurance company covering only the healthiest people = highest profits, right? Every person you add who actually (gasp) needs to use their insurance cuts into the bottom line. Thus, insurance companies (as private, for-profit companies) would like nothing more than to cover the highest possible # of people who won't ever use their insurance, and the fewest # who will

rahl

I know I know, profit is an evil thing that has no place in America. I bet whatever you do for a living and the company you work for doesn't strive to make profits right.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

Profits aren't evil. Companies making profits by trying as hard as possible NOT to provide the service that people are paying for is a little iffy, however

rahl

They're not trying as hard as possible not to pay. If your covered they'll pay, if your not they won't. Pretty simple. If the claim wasn't filed properly, rectify it. It's not their responsibility to rectify it for you. They have to be on the look out for insurance fraud, which believe it or not is a pretty big problem.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ASU2003

I was talking about the terms of the health insurance policy. If they put a cap of $100,000 on it, no mental health, no vision, and a high deductible, I can either live with it, or pay my employers share and get a policy on the open market.

I am a healthy person, so I take the risk, but I know that I would go bankrupt if I had to go to the hospital for a week or two.