Health Care, Obama.....

Two things.

1) Don't think you were not already paying for the uninsured. When deadbeats need care, who do you think pays that bill? You think the hospital just eats that cost? Or do they do like every other business and pass that cost along to everyone else?

That is why a band aid at the hospital costs $17. It is OK though because you get a free dose of MRSA.

I visited Mayo a few years ago. I got my bill and it was approximately $110,000. My insurance ended up paying about 10% of that cost to settle the bill - meaning if I did not have insurance, the services I required cost over $100K, but since I had insurance, they only cost $10K?

No, I am not talking about copay. I was already at my max for the year, so I did not pay a dime. The hospital received just north of $10K for my services, but my bill read over $110K.

Something doesn't quite add up there.

2) Looking at profit margins for insurance is misleading when all they really do is funnel money from one place to another. They don't provide care or really do anything other than deny coverage (natch!)

Granted, it is listed in a blog but the article has some interesting info:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/health_care_reform

SC Cheesehead said:
Statistics contradict your statement:


2009 Net Profit Margin of Healthcare Insurers
Aetna: 3.7%
Wellpoint: 7.3%
Cigna: 7.1%
United Health: 3.7%
Humana: 3.4%
Healthnet: -0.3%
Healthspring: 5.0%
Coventry Health Care: 2.3%
Molina Healthcare:0.8%
United American Corp: 2.7%
Unum Group: 8.4%

Median: 3.7%
http://larrycheng.com/2010/03/08/just-how-profitable-are-healthcare-insurers/

Second, Health insurance companies do not "ration" health care, they are merely a mechanism for providing payment for health care services. Physicians and hospitals provide health care services, and a substantial portion of those services are given without remuneration, so contrary to what is often stated, if an individual requires medical attention, it is available.

I'm not defending health insurance companies by any means, but to make them the bad guys to justify transitioning to a government-run health care system may be misdirected.

IMO, one of the major factors in the escalating heath care costs over the past 15 years has been increased government regulation and mandates. My wife is a Medical Lab Tech, and emperically, she's seen paperwork requirements more than double with no generated benefit. Add to that onerous malpractice settlements that often generate excessive or unnecessary tests or procedues in an effort for physicians to CYA, and you've got a bad situation that's getting worse.

And the cynic in me says there's virtually nothing the government can do better, more effectively, or cheaper, than the private sector. What we have ain't great by any means, but I don't think handing it off to the government to "fix" is the answer.
Click to expand...
 
duhtroll,

Good points, and an excellent article, but again, as stated above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Cheesehead
And the cynic in me says there's ABSOLUTELY nothing the government can do better, more effectively, or cheaper, than the private sector.


Bluerauder said:
There ^^^^^ Rex... I fixed it for you. ;)
Click to expand...
 
SC Cheesehead said:
duhtroll,

Good points, and an excellent article, but again, as stated above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Cheesehead
And the cynic in me says there's ABSOLUTELY nothing the government can do better, more effectively, or cheaper, than the private sector.
Click to expand...

Let's see... right off the top of my head... military. Is the private sector better at that? How do the costs compare? I just love generalizations. :lol:
 
BruteForce said:
Let's see... right off the top of my head... military. Is the private sector better at that? How do the costs compare? I just love generalizations. :lol:
Click to expand...

Oops, got me on that one! :o

IIRC, there were some guys a few years back that set up the following deal:

The Congress shall have power—
"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States. "
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
"To coin money, regulate the value, thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."

My copy doesn't have a section about authorizing Obamacare, I must be missing a few pages... :rolleyes:
 
guspech750 said:
All I have to say is why should I and other working citizens have to pay for lazy sob's, drug addicts, women who can keep their legs closed andillegal aliens or someone who just doesn't want inssurance. There is not one good reason we have to foot the bill and reward losers.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40916445/ns/us_news

These folks will help pay. (copied from the article)


The Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, to 132.8 million by 2050, when nearly one in three U.S. residents will be Latino, according to a 2008 U.S. Census Bureau study.
 
SC Cheesehead said:
Oops, got me on that one! :o

IIRC, there were some guys a few years back that set up the following deal:

The Congress shall have power—
"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States. "
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
"To coin money, regulate the value, thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."

My copy doesn't have a section about authorizing Obamacare, I must be missing a few pages... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually it is right in the text you posted.

"General welfare" directly implies that they are responsible for the health of our citizenship.

That could also be interpreted to mean that they could be responsible for providing for all of us, too.

Guess the founding fathers were socialists, after all. :P
 
Last edited:
duhtroll said:
Actually it is right in the text you posted.

"General welfare" directly implies that they are responsible for the health of our citizenship.

That could also be interpreted to mean that they could be responsible for providing for all of us, too.

Guess the founding fathers were socialists, after all. :P
Click to expand...

Revisionist mentality... ;)
 
duhtroll said:
Revisionist? OK, you define what "welfare" means. Then tell me it doesn't include health in any way.

Good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

Provide for the general welfare means;

Free; Food, car insurance, baby sitters, wood splitters, concert tickets, obsolete motorcycle parts, counciling for broken hearts, mouse traps, tattoos, wood working tools, house plants, barn cats, sillly looking hats, ice skates, great first dates, personal trainers, 5 micron strainers, vaccuum cleaner bags, oil change rags, mouse pads, maxi pads, helicopter landing pads, 9/16th sockets, bottle rockets, nachos, sneakers, computer speakers, memory upgrades, first class upgrades, scuba gear, ice cold beer, 12 point deer, health care, welfare, and Obama care.

Or it could just mean that general welfare means we don't have to contend with invading armies.
 
Leadfoot281 said:
Provide for the general welfare means;

Free; Food, car insurance, baby sitters, wood splitters, concert tickets, obsolete motorcycle parts, counciling for broken hearts, mouse traps, tattoos, wood working tools, house plants, barn cats, sillly looking hats, ice skates, great first dates, personal trainers, 5 micron strainers, vaccuum cleaner bags, oil change rags, mouse pads, maxi pads, helicopter landing pads, 9/16th sockets, bottle rockets, nachos, sneakers, computer speakers, memory upgrades, first class upgrades, scuba gear, ice cold beer, 12 point deer, health care, welfare, and Obama care.

Or it could just mean that general welfare means we don't have to contend with invading armies.
Click to expand...

^^^^^ There you go, dt. ^^^^^;)


Somehow I don't think the Founding Fathers were enivsioning Obamacare when they drafted the Constitution...:rolleyes:
 
Leadfoot281 said:
Provide for the general welfare means;

Free; Food, car insurance, baby sitters, wood splitters, concert tickets, obsolete motorcycle parts, counciling for broken hearts, mouse traps, tattoos, wood working tools, house plants, barn cats, sillly looking hats, ice skates, great first dates, personal trainers, 5 micron strainers, vaccuum cleaner bags, oil change rags, mouse pads, maxi pads, helicopter landing pads, 9/16th sockets, bottle rockets, nachos, sneakers, computer speakers, memory upgrades, first class upgrades, scuba gear, ice cold beer, 12 point deer, health care, welfare, and Obama care.

Or it could just mean that general welfare means we don't have to contend with invading armies.
Click to expand...

Man I had tears in my eyes from laughing by the time I got to 'bottle rockets', that was great! :beer:
 
CBT said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40916445/ns/us_news

These folks will help pay. (copied from the article)


The Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, to 132.8 million by 2050, when nearly one in three U.S. residents will be Latino, according to a 2008 U.S. Census Bureau study.
Click to expand...

Or I guess we could just let all the illegals overrun our country then I will become a "minority" and get free stuff. Problem solved.
 
But that is just it. Who are you to say what the founding fathers intended by the word "welfare?" Health is part of the definition of welfare. Doesn't change anything. People still only hear what they want to hear.

I am speaking as someone who doesnt see an effect from Obama's plan either way. I just find the bickering to be pointless.

SC Cheesehead said:
^^^^^ There you go, dt. ^^^^^;)


Somehow I don't think the Founding Fathers were enivsioning Obamacare when they drafted the Constitution...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
duhtroll said:
But that is just it. Who are you to say what the founding fathers intended by the word "welfare?" Health is part of the definition of welfare, so if we are to adhere to the Constitution, the government should have some say in deciding what type of health care we have.

They just read the entire document on the floor of the Congress, right? Doesn't change anything. People still only hear what they want to hear.

I am speaking as someone who doesnt see an effect from Obama's plan either way. I just find the bickering to be pointless.
Click to expand...

Well your right, the constitution is open for interpretation, which is why we have judges and the supreme court. The problem is, more and more judges are allowing their personal politics to enter in when ruling on decisions, and I can safely say that is not what the fore-fathers intended. Judges are supposed to interpret and enforce the law, not make policy and their judgements are often clouded by personal politics whether they be conservative, moderate or liberal.

You cannot say that Obamacare does not effect you, our insurance costs have raised to pay for the welfare of the people that do not have insurance, our taxes were raised in the pay for six and get ten plan, it effected everyone.

I am speaking as a Democrat, however I am against Obamacare. We need healthcare reform, we need to make it accessible for everyone (not mandatory) we need a patients bill of rights and we need a cap put on malpractice judgements to prevent the skyrocketing of insurance.

All of this will not happen in the forseeable future because all we do in congress and society is critique the opposing view as evil. We never discuss solutions, hell we even do it on this site. How many posts have you seen demnifying liberals as evil, or demonizing conservatives as nutbags (I have done it as well).

I submit that instead of trying to persuade the other side to see things the same, that we find out where we have middleground and let it grow into a solution that is best for everyone.

We cannot have a radical change as this country just isn't built for that, it takes baby steps. Slavery didn't end with the civil war, that was a start and it took another 100 years to get civil rights laws passed and to desegregate. We need to take constant steps forward and not try to jump. Just my opinion
 
My insurance rates have gone up an average of 10% every year in the last few years, before Obamacare.

PonyUP said:
Well your right, the constitution is open for interpretation, which is why we have judges and the supreme court. The problem is, more and more judges are allowing their personal politics to enter in when ruling on decisions, and I can safely say that is not what the fore-fathers intended. Judges are supposed to interpret and enforce the law, not make policy and their judgements are often clouded by personal politics whether they be conservative, moderate or liberal.

You cannot say that Obamacare does not effect you, our insurance costs have raised to pay for the welfare of the people that do not have insurance, our taxes were raised in the pay for six and get ten plan, it effected everyone.

I am speaking as a Democrat, however I am against Obamacare. We need healthcare reform, we need to make it accessible for everyone (not mandatory) we need a patients bill of rights and we need a cap put on malpractice judgements to prevent the skyrocketing of insurance.

All of this will not happen in the forseeable future because all we do in congress and society is critique the opposing view as evil. We never discuss solutions, hell we even do it on this site. How many posts have you seen demnifying liberals as evil, or demonizing conservatives as nutbags (I have done it as well).

I submit that instead of trying to persuade the other side to see things the same, that we find out where we have middleground and let it grow into a solution that is best for everyone.

We cannot have a radical change as this country just isn't built for that, it takes baby steps. Slavery didn't end with the civil war, that was a start and it took another 100 years to get civil rights laws passed and to desegregate. We need to take constant steps forward and not try to jump. Just my opinion
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top