Prexisting Conditions & Insurance

[redblooded]

OP- I don't think you need any clarification. Sounds to me like you understand it fully. It is simply our government helping to replace personal responsibility with other peoples money. Really just more of the same.

 

I'm pretty sure that ass in your avatar isn't yours, but thankfully you hand picked it, and it's the absolute most fitting avatar for you, an ass. A pretty nice ass, but an ass none the less.

 

Of course, neither of you understand this fully, no wonder you'd assume someone other then you with barely a basic grasp does. Then you place the blame for it on the government, but don't actually understand what insurance does and therefore what you are talking about.

 

This is introductory level statistics here. The supposed "universal" language of math.

 

It's shameful that so few Americans can speak it, especially older voting Americans, it should be a requirement before you can vote. There should be a test to understand statistics, since anything you vote for is going to affect a population and thus affect an entire statistical population. Let's hope.

[redblooded]

.. double post

[HSKR]

Another thing I might add is government or private, I honestly don't believe healthcare will ever get more affordable, at least in our lifetimes. Do you ever ask yourself why it is so expensive? Pricey Doctors? Greedy insurance or pharmaceutical companies? I'm not exactly old yet, but I have been around long enough to see the medical field has been completely revolutionized in the amount of procedures and techniques now used. In the old days, if you got cancer, you died, that's pretty affordable. Now you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatments fairly easy and that has to be paid for. Got blockage in the heart? You had a heart attack and died. Now we have amazing procedures to put stints in and treat you with medicines that help remove the blockage, but it costs money. Oh and did I mention the 15 follow up visits with the doctor? Yea, that costs too. Hip replacements, knee replacements, etc. When I was a kid, it was more likely the individual simply got a cane, walker or even wheelchair lived the rest of their life that way. Don't forget the the six weeks of physical therapy that comes with that and yea, that costs as well. Now we understand mental illnesses much better as well and have much better care and meds for that, but it costs a crapload.

 

Now I am not saying that these things are bad, I'm just trying to show the point that it costs a lot of money of this stuff. For you that are young, you may not realize it yet, but as you get older you will understand how rapidly the medical field is changing but that change and addition of procedures costs money. I just don't see how it will ever get cheaper when we get treated for things that 10, 25, 50 years ago didn't even exist. The ONLY way you reverse the costs in any significant way is to simply go old school and limit the amount of medical treatment you get and this is why many are concerned with Obamacare because when they figure out they don't have the money or resources to treat people, you will get put on a waiting list. Hope you last that long.

 

This is exactly why for profit insurance is bullsh#t. It's making money from population statistics, yet it's absolutely in the "provider's" benefit to make sure that you don't get coverage for any condition in which they'd lose profit from you. They are there to bet that the pool of people they cover costs less then their premium amounts minus their expenses simply for pooling and offsetting the money you pay in. That's why you've seen huge lawsuits made into movies like "The Rainmaker". Insurance companies aren't there for you, they are there to pool you into a group and charge you above the mean cost of your lifetime health coverage then cut out the upper outliers for their own profit... Just pray you aren't one. It's basically a reverse lottery where they control the payouts.

 

Frankly they could do the same being state run, probably better since they'd have continuous records from the population instead of hit or miss blips from the population trying to not incur a deductable. Plus everyone having to pay into the same pool. Except then we hit the old problem of kickbacks to political friends. Which dives us right back into the heart of the problem, political contributions. That's what pretty much every issue is deflecting attention from. It is the root cause.

 

All insurance is basically just a prepaid loan pool by a bunch of people so that it can statistically cover the cost of unexpected expenses plus executive salaries from that pool and any interest they make on it. (Which they do, anytime you prepay anything you give them more then you receive, do a quick net-present-value search)

 

Yet universal health insurance is evil and socialist. Not to mention completely unAmerican, but we all fund the military in the same way.

 

The whole basis of anti-universal heath care is "I don't want to pay for those unhealthy people" and that's the gist of Insurance too. Yet you do it either way. Through taxes for people that hold off till they get emergency care. It's moronic and totally republican. Someone needs to start the MATH party, to do what makes sense numbers wise, just with enough common sense to not take it into "social" conservative/liberal areas.

 

but if they really wanted to solve these issues they'd be listening to people like Lawrence Lessig (from about 14:50 on) about campaign reform.

 

Then maybe politicians would do the right thing, and explain it to the slow... i.e. republicans that cant wrap their heads around the math the simple fact they won't ever statistically benefit from tax breaks for the 99.5% nor will they ever get there even if they hit the powerball.

 

 

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

[HSKR]

OP- I don't think you need any clarification. Sounds to me like you understand it fully. It is simply our government helping to replace personal responsibility with other peoples money. Really just more of the same.

 

I'm pretty sure that ass in your avatar isn't yours, but thankfully you hand picked it, and it's the absolute most fitting avatar for you, an ass. A pretty nice ass, but an ass none the less.

 

Of course, neither of you understand this fully, no wonder you'd assume someone other then you with barely a basic grasp does. Then you place the blame for it on the government, but don't actually understand what insurance does and therefore what you are talking about.

 

This is introductory level statistics here. The supposed "universal" language of math.

 

It's shameful that so few Americans can speak it, especially older voting Americans, it should be a requirement before you can vote. There should be a test to understand statistics, since anything you vote for is going to affect a population and thus affect an entire statistical population. Let's hope.

 

Awesome, don't agree with someone, let the personal attacks fly. Stay classy redblooded.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

OP- I don't think you need any clarification. Sounds to me like you understand it fully. It is simply our government helping to replace personal responsibility with other peoples money. Really just more of the same.

 

I'm pretty sure that ass in your avatar isn't yours, but thankfully you hand picked it, and it's the absolute most fitting avatar for you, an ass. A pretty nice ass, but an ass none the less.

 

Of course, neither of you understand this fully, no wonder you'd assume someone other then you with barely a basic grasp does. Then you place the blame for it on the government, but don't actually understand what insurance does and therefore what you are talking about.

 

This is introductory level statistics here. The supposed "universal" language of math.

 

It's shameful that so few Americans can speak it, especially older voting Americans, it should be a requirement before you can vote. There should be a test to understand statistics, since anything you vote for is going to affect a population and thus affect an entire statistical population. Let's hope.

 

 

Dang dude really... Your part of the reason political discourse in this country sucks.. Nice...

[redblooded]

Another thing I might add is government or private, I honestly don't believe healthcare will ever get more affordable, at least in our lifetimes. Do you ever ask yourself why it is so expensive? Pricey Doctors? Greedy insurance or pharmaceutical companies? I'm not exactly old yet, but I have been around long enough to see the medical field has been completely revolutionized in the amount of procedures and techniques now used. In the old days, if you got cancer, you died, that's pretty affordable. Now you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatments fairly easy and that has to be paid for. Got blockage in the heart? You had a heart attack and died. Now we have amazing procedures to put stints in and treat you with medicines that help remove the blockage, but it costs money. Oh and did I mention the 15 follow up visits with the doctor? Yea, that costs too. Hip replacements, knee replacements, etc. When I was a kid, it was more likely the individual simply got a cane, walker or even wheelchair lived the rest of their life that way. Don't forget the the six weeks of physical therapy that comes with that and yea, that costs as well. Now we understand mental illnesses much better as well and have much better care and meds for that, but it costs a crapload.

 

Now I am not saying that these things are bad, I'm just trying to show the point that it costs a lot of money of this stuff. For you that are young, you may not realize it yet, but as you get older you will understand how rapidly the medical field is changing but that change and addition of procedures costs money. I just don't see how it will ever get cheaper when we get treated for things that 10, 25, 50 years ago didn't even exist. The ONLY way you reverse the costs in any significant way is to simply go old school and limit the amount of medical treatment you get and this is why many are concerned with Obamacare because when they figure out they don't have the money or resources to treat people, you will get put on a waiting list. Hope you last that long.

 

This is exactly why for profit insurance is bullsh#t. It's making money from population statistics, yet it's absolutely in the "provider's" benefit to make sure that you don't get coverage for any condition in which they'd lose profit from you. They are there to bet that the pool of people they cover costs less then their premium amounts minus their expenses simply for pooling and offsetting the money you pay in. That's why you've seen huge lawsuits made into movies like "The Rainmaker". Insurance companies aren't there for you, they are there to pool you into a group and charge you above the mean cost of your lifetime health coverage then cut out the upper outliers for their own profit... Just pray you aren't one. It's basically a reverse lottery where they control the payouts.

 

Frankly they could do the same being state run, probably better since they'd have continuous records from the population instead of hit or miss blips from the population trying to not incur a deductable. Plus everyone having to pay into the same pool. Except then we hit the old problem of kickbacks to political friends. Which dives us right back into the heart of the problem, political contributions. That's what pretty much every issue is deflecting attention from. It is the root cause.

 

All insurance is basically just a prepaid loan pool by a bunch of people so that it can statistically cover the cost of unexpected expenses plus executive salaries from that pool and any interest they make on it. (Which they do, anytime you prepay anything you give them more then you receive, do a quick net-present-value search)

 

Yet universal health insurance is evil and socialist. Not to mention completely unAmerican, but we all fund the military in the same way.

 

The whole basis of anti-universal heath care is "I don't want to pay for those unhealthy people" and that's the gist of Insurance too. Yet you do it either way. Through taxes for people that hold off till they get emergency care. It's moronic and totally republican. Someone needs to start the MATH party, to do what makes sense numbers wise, just with enough common sense to not take it into "social" conservative/liberal areas.

 

but if they really wanted to solve these issues they'd be listening to people like Lawrence Lessig (from about 14:50 on) about campaign reform.

 

Then maybe politicians would do the right thing, and explain it to the slow... i.e. republicans that cant wrap their heads around the math the simple fact they won't ever statistically benefit from tax breaks for the 99.5% nor will they ever get there even if they hit the powerball.

 

 

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

 

I refuse to believe the best we can do as a species is to cover the lower half of the mean healthcare wise, while hoping the top half all die fast and the only outliers we incur are at the bottom end and hopefully there is enough money left over for the CEO to get a fancy house and car. Or sell that block to some other company for a few million.

 

I've seen insurance from the inside like 99% of people in Omaha, it's not a very nice game if you can do basic algebra. Yet since it is statistics, it's a game where 1) the bigger the pool the better for every policyholder's bottom line. and 2) the more data-points the more accurately you can predict the costs.

 

If you think you're in the upper tier of healthcare you're insane. Unless your in the upper .05% of income to the point actually paying for insurance would just cost you more money over your lifetime you're imagining the amount and quality of care you'll get. Just like you probably imagine your going to make millions of dollars and actually benefit from the tax cuts republicans want to keep. Statistically, it's unlikely, like almost lottery odds unlikely otherwise insurance companies wouldn't be in business. (unless you actually do, but if that's the case you should hire me to type out responses for you on sports message-boards that won't ever actually influence sh#t, pm me for my contact info in that case and I'll argue against common sense and basic math all you want once the check clears).

[carlfense]

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

The problem with this argument is that we can look at a miniature single payer system right here in the United States. It's working quite well at the moment . . . in fact . . . better than much of the private market. ("The Best Care Anywhere." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html)

 

Second, I think your visceral reaction to the word "socialist" is exactly the sort of thing that redblooded was talking about. I'm guessing redblooded doesn't want to add an S.R. after U.S. I'm guessing he isn't a fan of Mao. Yet somehow we can't have a conversation about the very real problem of paying for health care without references to the most evil examples of socialism. He's right . . . if you look at the numbers there isn't any argument. Single payer is the only way to adequately risk pool to lower costs and increase availability. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime because the insurance companies are making enormous profits that they then dump into scary advertisements and lobbying. The AMA isn't far behind.

[redblooded]

OP- I don't think you need any clarification. Sounds to me like you understand it fully. It is simply our government helping to replace personal responsibility with other peoples money. Really just more of the same.

 

I'm pretty sure that ass in your avatar isn't yours, but thankfully you hand picked it, and it's the absolute most fitting avatar for you, an ass. A pretty nice ass, but an ass none the less.

 

Of course, neither of you understand this fully, no wonder you'd assume someone other then you with barely a basic grasp does. Then you place the blame for it on the government, but don't actually understand what insurance does and therefore what you are talking about.

 

This is introductory level statistics here. The supposed "universal" language of math.

 

It's shameful that so few Americans can speak it, especially older voting Americans, it should be a requirement before you can vote. There should be a test to understand statistics, since anything you vote for is going to affect a population and thus affect an entire statistical population. Let's hope.

 

 

Dang dude really... Your part of the reason political discourse in this country sucks.. Nice...

 

Can't really argue with that. There should be a mid-high-school level math class refresher course required to vote though, I'll stand by that. It should include a class on the

as well.

 

Edit: also

Awesome, don't agree with someone, let the personal attacks fly. Stay classy redblooded.

 

Never have I claimed to be classy, but well, that wasn't personal. I've done a lot worse then calling a spade a spade on this here internets machine.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

@Carlfense:

The issue we will run into is the 40% tax on my plan. Total value per year is around 10k, so we are looking at a 4k increase. With a crap economy and fewer clients (an internal issue) it will be hard to justify the added expense. I can see one of three things happening.

 

1) Corporate decides to defend the plan and sucks up the 40% tax, or spreads it between us and them, either way a big hit in ye olde pocket book.

2) They cut the plan to get it under 8k and avoid the tax.

3) With state exchanges, they use the down economy and increased plan costs as a reason to dump everyone onto the exchange.

 

In my current situation I see number two being the most likely, a good thing I have going is everyone from the VP to the guy who cleans the toilets is on the same plan.

 

@HSKR:

The benefits package my company has (health/retirement) is one of the reasons I took this job. You are correct that we get more bang for the buck with the more people we have in the program. Problem is the approx 10k per person plan will jump to 14k with no change in coverage, just due to taxes. That is real money and is enough to put our small divisions (we have approx 80 U.S. based employees) plan on the chopping block. I can see companies cutting the plans, or possibly dumping them, but I wouldn’t think it would last forever. As the economy turns around, and competition for talent increases, increased benefits would become a selling point.

[strigori]

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

The problem with this argument is that we can look at a miniature single payer system right here in the United States. It's working quite well at the moment . . . in fact . . . better than much of the private market. ("The Best Care Anywhere." http://www.washingto...01.longman.html)

 

Second, I think your visceral reaction to the word "socialist" is exactly the sort of thing that redblooded was talking about. I'm guessing redblooded doesn't want to add an S.R. after U.S. I'm guessing he isn't a fan of Mao. Yet somehow we can't have a conversation about the very real problem of paying for health care without references to the most evil examples of socialism. He's right . . . if you look at the numbers there isn't any argument. Single payer is the only way to adequately risk pool to lower costs and increase availability. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime because the insurance companies are making enormous profits that they then dump into scary advertisements and lobbying. The AMA isn't far behind.

Exactly.

 

And a massive part of the cost of the private insurance is overhead, Mountains of paper work and all the salaries of the people who just move papers around, people who make descicions based on spread sheets weather or not to approve something a doctor views an needed for a patient.

 

The weak minded in this country need to start thinking for themselves, actually paying attention to facts and stop believing the right wing, and the people who are profiteering of the missery of others. Stop falling for the scare tactics, and the word 'socalist.' The true irony is the many of the people most against universal health care call themselves Christans. They need to take a min, and ask themselves (like they claim to on many other matters) 'What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support universal health care?'

[HSKR]

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

The problem with this argument is that we can look at a miniature single payer system right here in the United States. It's working quite well at the moment . . . in fact . . . better than much of the private market. ("The Best Care Anywhere." http://www.washingto...01.longman.html)

 

Second, I think your visceral reaction to the word "socialist" is exactly the sort of thing that redblooded was talking about. I'm guessing redblooded doesn't want to add an S.R. after U.S. I'm guessing he isn't a fan of Mao. Yet somehow we can't have a conversation about the very real problem of paying for health care without references to the most evil examples of socialism. He's right . . . if you look at the numbers there isn't any argument. Single payer is the only way to adequately risk pool to lower costs and increase availability. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime because the insurance companies are making enormous profits that they then dump into scary advertisements and lobbying. The AMA isn't far behind.

Exactly.

 

And a massive part of the cost of the private insurance is overhead, Mountains of paper work and all the salaries of the people who just move papers around, people who make descicions based on spread sheets weather or not to approve something a doctor views an needed for a patient.

 

The weak minded in this country need to start thinking for themselves, actually paying attention to facts and stop believing the right wing, and the people who are profiteering of the missery of others. Stop falling for the scare tactics, and the word 'socalist.' The true irony is the many of the people most against universal health care call themselves Christans. They need to take a min, and ask themselves (like they claim to on many other matters) 'What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support universal health care?'

 

and the government will do a better job at that then private industries? LOL!!!!

[strigori]

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

The problem with this argument is that we can look at a miniature single payer system right here in the United States. It's working quite well at the moment . . . in fact . . . better than much of the private market. ("The Best Care Anywhere." http://www.washingto...01.longman.html)

 

Second, I think your visceral reaction to the word "socialist" is exactly the sort of thing that redblooded was talking about. I'm guessing redblooded doesn't want to add an S.R. after U.S. I'm guessing he isn't a fan of Mao. Yet somehow we can't have a conversation about the very real problem of paying for health care without references to the most evil examples of socialism. He's right . . . if you look at the numbers there isn't any argument. Single payer is the only way to adequately risk pool to lower costs and increase availability. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime because the insurance companies are making enormous profits that they then dump into scary advertisements and lobbying. The AMA isn't far behind.

Exactly.

 

And a massive part of the cost of the private insurance is overhead, Mountains of paper work and all the salaries of the people who just move papers around, people who make descicions based on spread sheets weather or not to approve something a doctor views an needed for a patient.

 

The weak minded in this country need to start thinking for themselves, actually paying attention to facts and stop believing the right wing, and the people who are profiteering of the missery of others. Stop falling for the scare tactics, and the word 'socalist.' The true irony is the many of the people most against universal health care call themselves Christans. They need to take a min, and ask themselves (like they claim to on many other matters) 'What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support universal health care?'

 

and the government will do a better job at that then private industries? LOL!!!!

The VA article Carl linked shows they already do. And I would have to track it down, but medicare does also.

 

To say nothing of the fact that the gov wouldn't have execs pulling in millions and millions of dollars, and stock prices to keep up, that moeny doesn't apear by magic, they are robbing the policy holders.

[carlfense]

<snip> The true irony is the many of the people most against universal health care call themselves Christans. They need to take a min, and ask themselves (like they claim to on many other matters) 'What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support universal health care?'

[carlfense]

The VA article Carl linked shows they already do. And I would have to track it down, but medicare does also.

 

To say nothing of the fact that the gov wouldn't have execs pulling in millions and millions of dollars, and stock prices to keep up, that moeny doesn't apear by magic, they are robbing the policy holders.

Dirty little secrets, those.

[Comish]

So to sum it up, you are willing to lose the quality and and the availability of healthcare that we currently have for those who can afford it in order for everyone to be covered at a lesser degree because the government will never ever ever ever ever be able to afford it any better then private insurance does thus everyone's coverage options will be limited to make up for it. I'll give you credit that at least you admit your views are socialist.

The problem with this argument is that we can look at a miniature single payer system right here in the United States. It's working quite well at the moment . . . in fact . . . better than much of the private market. ("The Best Care Anywhere." http://www.washingto...01.longman.html)

 

Second, I think your visceral reaction to the word "socialist" is exactly the sort of thing that redblooded was talking about. I'm guessing redblooded doesn't want to add an S.R. after U.S. I'm guessing he isn't a fan of Mao. Yet somehow we can't have a conversation about the very real problem of paying for health care without references to the most evil examples of socialism. He's right . . . if you look at the numbers there isn't any argument. Single payer is the only way to adequately risk pool to lower costs and increase availability. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime because the insurance companies are making enormous profits that they then dump into scary advertisements and lobbying. The AMA isn't far behind.

Exactly.

 

And a massive part of the cost of the private insurance is overhead, Mountains of paper work and all the salaries of the people who just move papers around, people who make descicions based on spread sheets weather or not to approve something a doctor views an needed for a patient.

 

The weak minded in this country need to start thinking for themselves, actually paying attention to facts and stop believing the right wing, and the people who are profiteering of the missery of others. Stop falling for the scare tactics, and the word 'socalist.' The true irony is the many of the people most against universal health care call themselves Christans. They need to take a min, and ask themselves (like they claim to on many other matters) 'What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support universal health care?'

 

And you believe the bolded red above does NOT happen in a federal bureaucracy.............?? I know the last few times I've attempted to navigate the morass that masquerades as "the Fed", I was unbelievably frustrated.......! Just sayin...........