Jim in Anchorage Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 i'm sorry about the bipolar thing, but ... what's you're view on police and fire and edukation? if guns are a right in this country, then shouldn't there be a right to fix the wounds? (and i realize i'm stepping on two hot-topic issues here, but what the hell). jw You sure know a lot of friendly bartenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Then according to this logic, shouldn't we socialize medicine/pharmaceutical companies as well? The Drug makers have much higher profit margins than the health insurers, who btw are much less than most other industries. And they'll continue to because the Administration has already agreed not to use their purchasing power to negotiate better rates. But according to Kelly this "plan" is a step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 They are the way to go, but the Dems want to kill them off as well, for some reason. Pretty simple really - you use before tax dollars on an HSA. We all know how much the Dems love tax dollars, though the figures I read show the uber rich get by far the largest benefit from HSA so we can also continue some class warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Pretty simple really - you use before tax dollars on an HSA. We all know how much the Dems love tax dollars, though the figures I read show the uber rich get by far the largest benefit from HSA so we can also continue some class warfare. HSA's wouldn't be a bad idea if there was transparency in pricing in health care. In a perfect world, you could shop with your dollars for the best deal and providers could compete for your dollars. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Try getting a quote for anything more involved than a proctology exam. Hell, just try to pay cash for a visit at a doctors office...they don't even know what they charge depending on insurance discounts and what insurance you may or not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 HSA's wouldn't be a bad idea if there was transparency in pricing in health care. In a perfect world, you could shop with your dollars for the best deal and providers could compete for your dollars. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Try getting a quote for anything more involved than a proctology exam. Hell, just try to pay cash for a visit at a doctors office...they don't even know what they charge depending on insurance discounts and what insurance you may or not have. Then wouldn't it make sense in a perfect world to fix this critical part of the healthcare industry first, instead of sweeping it under the rug of the new even larger private/public behemoth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 And they'll continue to because the Administration has already agreed not to use their purchasing power to negotiate better rates. But according to Kelly this "plan" is a step in the right direction. The entire system (which is not a system) is broke. This IS a step in the right direction as it attempts to fix some of the broken issues. There are other horribly broken issues that are not being sincerely or sufficiently addressed. I am already on record here as saying Obama has been terrible on the drug company element of the broken system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Insurance is a racket, How is insurance a "racket," exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 HSA's wouldn't be a bad idea if there was transparency in pricing in health care. In a perfect world, you could shop with your dollars for the best deal and providers could compete for your dollars. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Try getting a quote for anything more involved than a proctology exam. Hell, just try to pay cash for a visit at a doctors office...they don't even know what they charge depending on insurance discounts and what insurance you may or not have. Most people don't shop for health care based on who is the cheapest. They want the best, for obvious reasons. If you want the best, in anything, you pay more for it. If want the cheapest, you get what you pay for. Which is the problem with HR 3200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Most people don't shop for health care based on who is the cheapest. They want the best, for obvious reasons. If you want the best, in anything, you pay more for it. If want the cheapest, you get what you pay for. Which is the problem with HR 3200. They don't want the best, they want the best they can afford. What changes in that scenario with "HR 3200"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Then wouldn't it make sense in a perfect world to fix this critical part of the healthcare industry first, instead of sweeping it under the rug of the new even larger private/public behemoth? There are a lot of critical parts that need fixing. Hillarycare was fought tooth and nail back in the 90's and subsequently buried and very little reform has been brought about since. Health care takes up close to 20% of GDP and doesn't cover 50 million. The private market for insurance has very few options for even healthy young people. Choice is becoming scarce even for those working for big companies or municipalities. Left on their own, the insurance companies haven't done squat to increase options or access to care. Proposed legislation may not be any better, but the insurance industry has shown a lack of interest in reforming anything while they are in charge. Maybe its time to say !@#$ them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 There are a lot of critical parts that need fixing. Hillarycare was fought tooth and nail back in the 90's and subsequently buried and very little reform has been brought about since. Health care takes up close to 20% of GDP and doesn't cover 50 million. The private market for insurance has very few options for even healthy young people. Choice is becoming scarce even for those working for big companies or municipalities. Left on their own, the insurance companies haven't done squat to increase options or access to care. Proposed legislation may not be any better, but the insurance industry has shown a lack of interest in reforming anything while they are in charge. Maybe its time to say !@#$ them. The insurance industry exists in its present for because of regulatory imbalance that favors employer/union funded health plans. The individual buyer is at a major disadvantage. You can eliminate that imbalance with very quick legislation that either removes the tax break for one side, or adds the tax break to the other side. Either option would be the right thing to do. Hillary care never attempted to fix this imbalance, either. So, please spare me the histrionics about the evil insurance companies, when government policies are largely responsible for their current stature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 They don't want the best, they want the best they can afford. What changes in that scenario with "HR 3200"? Sorry, I should have said "[the best]...they can afford." Again, it's the same in everything. You want the best [you can afford], you'll pay more for it, whereas if you don't, you get what you [don't] pay for. HR 3200 will lead to rationing as more people enter the system and drain it of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Sorry, I should have said "[the best]...they can afford." Again, it's the same in everything. You want the best [you can afford], you'll pay more for it, whereas if you don't, you get what you [don't] pay for. HR 3200 will lead to rationing as more people enter the system and drain it of resources. So, it's better to keep the uninsured out, so there's more health care available for you if you need it? Maybe if everyone had access to health care, the poor wouldn't be filling up the ER's whenever they get the sniffles. Seems like that would free up ER resources for better uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 So, it's better to keep the uninsured out, so there's more health care available for you if you need it? Maybe if everyone had access to health care, the poor wouldn't be filling up the ER's whenever they get the sniffles. Seems like that would free up ER resources for better uses. So let me understand, an ER does not count as "access to health care"? What exactly do they get at the ER, ice cream? And what about the people that simply choose not to spend their money on health insurance? And how about other types of insurance? I bet there are 40 millions people who don't have homeowners/renters insurance either. What should we be doing about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The insurance industry exists in its present for because of regulatory imbalance that favors employer/union funded health plans. The individual buyer is at a major disadvantage. You can eliminate that imbalance with very quick legislation that either removes the tax break for one side, or adds the tax break to the other side. Either option would be the right thing to do. Hillary care never attempted to fix this imbalance, either. So, please spare me the histrionics about the evil insurance companies, when government policies are largely responsible for their current stature. I agree with everything said above, except I would go further. Allow other insurance companies to compete state by state, allow massive tort reform like Texas, allow doctors to write off charity work as income, give tax incentives to individuals as the big corps do, restore the tax incentives and stop killing off charity hospitals with regulation and lawsuits, and finally make lawyers who don't produce subservient to doctors who produce health and productivity. Prices would go way down massively overnight. Why is it the only things that are not subsidized like Lasik and liposuction are going down in price? It's not a coincidence. I even think another solution could be the Brazilian model where they have public health care that is "free" which is if you really need help, and yet they have private hospitals with private insurance. I still don't like that, but it's better than what we have now. Lastly, I find liberals to be humorous when say health care is a right and it's a moral question, even the president has said so, when he supports infanticide of abortions gone wrong. The liberals, the one who exclaim there is no right and wrong and you can't impose your beliefs on others, are now decrying moral hazard. They should go abort themselves and save the system a lot of money for us knuckle-dragging producers of income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Still waiting to hear how insurance is a "racket." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts