PDA

View Full Version : The WSJ on the contradictions in Osamacare



Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 05:47 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360541357223298.html

TXduckdog
08-20-2009, 06:40 PM
Obama doesn't know what hole he's talking out of from one minute to the next.

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 07:06 PM
Obama doesn't know what hole he's talking out of from one minute to the next.
Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 07:16 PM
Tx Duck Dog, he talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time.

Marvin S
08-20-2009, 07:54 PM
Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

The WSJ would be considered very moderate & business oriented - I quit subscribing to the Journal after having read more than one bit of drivel by that liberal icon, Al Hunt. He was on the WSJ editorial page. :rolleyes:

tpaschal30
08-22-2009, 03:36 PM
Interestingly, despite its title and despite the statement that he is contradicting himself constantly, the article did not detail any contradictions. I guess that what happens when the article you cite is from the opinion pages of one of the more conservative editorial boards in existence, and not from the news pages.

We can't "keep the system the way it is right now,". You don't think it is a contridiction that if you like your health plan you get to keep it, yet the bill is designed to kill your plan off and let those"bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
Or that he ran as a fiscal responsible tax cutter and is governing as a Fabian Socialist.

YardleyLabs
08-22-2009, 05:38 PM
We can't "keep the system the way it is right now,". You don't think it is a contridiction that if you like your health plan you get to keep it, yet the bill is designed to kill your plan off and let those"bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
Or that he ran as a fiscal responsible tax cutter and is governing as a Fabian Socialist.The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.

labraiser
08-22-2009, 09:50 PM
Jeff,

i think you need to lok at pg 16 of the house bill. It is craftly stated that if you leave a job that offers you private ins, then you next ins plan will have to be from the pubic option period. I also have one question, If it's cheaper for a company not to offer you private insurance and you are forced into the goverment plan, where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.

dnf777
08-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Jeff,

where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.

I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-22-2009, 11:41 PM
I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?

The only thing I see with this scenerio is a smart business owner saying...

"Good, less I have to pay out, means the MORE FOR ME"

Thats what I would do, and thats what Americans will do.

Americans are doing 1 of 2 things right now and probally for the next 3-5 years.

1. SAVING

2. Paying down DEBT.

neither of which boosts/increases productivity or the GDP...

NCA

JDogger
08-22-2009, 11:53 PM
The only thing I see with this scenerio is a smart business owner saying...

"Good, less I have to pay out, means the MORE FOR ME"

Thats what I would do, and thats what Americans will do.

Americans are doing 1 of 2 things right now and probally for the next 3-5 years.

1. SAVING

2. Paying down DEBT.

neither of which boosts/increases productivity or the GDP...

NCA

So, NCA. Give unto us your well earned wisdom. what are you doing? Saving, or paying down your debt, or both?

JD

M&K's Retrievers
08-23-2009, 12:09 AM
The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.

AAAARRRRGGGH!! You are just like Obama when it comes to misstatement of facts. Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!

JDogger
08-23-2009, 12:28 AM
AAAARRRRGGGH!! Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!

What planet, what planet?

JD

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-23-2009, 02:02 AM
So, NCA. Give unto us your well earned wisdom. what are you doing? Saving, or paying down your debt, or both?

JD

I have never claimed to be wise, but what I do have has been EARNED..something the masses, that believe in entitlement should look into.

I am SAVING......just so you know. I dont have DEBT, my father who is wise told me never dig a hole you can't get out of.

Good try, I'll give you credit (ha-ha)

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 06:47 AM
Jeff,

i think you need to lok at pg 16 of the house bill. It is craftly stated that if you leave a job that offers you private ins, then you next ins plan will have to be from the pubic option period. I also have one question, If it's cheaper for a company not to offer you private insurance and you are forced into the goverment plan, where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.
You would need to provide a quote indicating what you mean. Page 16 addresses the grandfathering in of employer plans that do not meet the minimum standards for qualified plans. It never mentions the public option at all. In fact, in the entire bill, there is no distinction between public and private options except for those that limit the ability of larger employers to elect to purchase coverage through the public option to protect the competitive position of private plans.

With respect to companies deciding it's cheaper to force employees into government plans....

I'm not sure what the issue is. Companies can now save money -- and many are choosing to do so -- by simply terminating their existing medical plans. Today, a company paying 10% of payroll on health care can reduce its labor costs by 10% by simply terminating insurance. Under the House bill, a (larger) company terminating coverage would not save 10%, because it would still have to pay the 8% tax. That makes it less likely, not more, that companies will terminate coverage they now offer. With respect to the proposed public option, the House bill requires that this be self supporting. It will charge premiums for coverage that are sufficient to pay all claims and administrative costs and maintain suitable insurance reserves to protect against fluctuations in payments. To the extent that an individual/family is entitled to a financial subsidy to pay a portion of the cost of coverage, that subsidy is equally available regardless of whether the individual purchases coverage through the public option plan or through a purely private plan. The proposed "Health Exchange" provides an open marketplace in which companies offering plans that meet at least the minimum standards for coverage may offer their plans to the general public. Both individuals and companies can use the exchange, if they desire, to purchase any plan at rates set by the provider. The Exchange will theoretically include tools to make it easier for purchasers to compare the costs and services offered by each available plan.

I'm not sure where your estimate of 84 million enrolling in the public option comes from. I've seen some estimates argue that the government will pay providers lower rates to keep costs down and that private insurers will have to pay providers more as a result. This, they argue, will make the government program cheaper and better than the private plans and people will therefore switch to the public option.

My own view is that if people flock freely to a public option because it is cheaper and better than private plans, then the private plans will have to figure out how to do a better job or go out of business. That is what competition is about. However, the competition needs to be open. Neither the private plans nor the public plan should receive preferential treatment under the law. In HR 3200, there are phase in provisions designed to limit the ability of employers to shift from private plans to the public option to protect private insurers during a 5 year transition period.

tpaschal30
08-23-2009, 07:32 AM
The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.

Yes it is. When the penalty for not providing health care ins to the employer is 8% of payroll and actual HCI cost percentage of payroll is 15%. What do you think almost every employer will do? If they want to stay competitive drop it, pay the 8%, and lower payroll cost 7%. If they did not want to end the eployer paid option it would be a 15 or 20% penalty.

Gerry Clinchy
08-23-2009, 08:54 AM
Yardley

My own view is that if people flock freely to a public option because it is cheaper and better than private plans, then the private plans will have to figure out how to do a better job or go out of business. That is what competition is about.

Let's go back to the USPS v. Fed Ex. Fed Ex makes money because it cherry-picks the profitable services. The USPS is required to offer those personal letters at 44 cents. Anybody use Fed Ex to send birthday cards? Christmas cards?

The public plan does the same thing, then mandates the private insurors also offer the same low-income services.

I believe the private insurors will stay in business by doing the same thing they do with Medicare. Let the govt program take the "basic" coverage, and sell the "gap" insurance as they do with Medicare. In a way, that might work out well for the private insurors. Get out of the basic coverage. Don't worry about having to accept pre-existing conditions, etc. Just sell the "supplemental" coverages with the govt plan picking up the rest.

So, now the private insurors will accept those gap coverages, even on pre-existing conditions, any guess at what the premiums may be? Will the govt then regulate what the private insurors can charge for those supplemental coverages? Since they won't be able to reject pre-existing conditions, will they be allowed to charge more premium for those cases for supplemental coverages? They can also offer coverage that would pay the first $5000/$10,000 deductible of the govt plan. That should be relatively cheap since exposure is limited to $5000/$10,000.

My inclination would be that the private insurance industry will get smaller in terms of people employed, but more profitable.

My larger fear is that the govt way under-estimates the cost of this public option over the long haul. Even though govt removes the "profit" from the bottom line, the govt layers in the bureaucracy, and costly employee benefits for Fed employees.

As these secondary costs become more evident, the cost of the govt plan will increase; and what they can't get from increasing premiums alone, they'll get in the form of income taxes. If it is accurate that almost 50% of our citizens do not pay any Fed income tax, then those who do pay will pay more. That will hurt the mid-income taxpayer more than the high-income taxpayer. I'd just venture a guess that the fellow making $60K/year has less disposable income than the fellow making $300K/year. A tax increase for the $60K guy may be less in flat dollars, but is likely to "hurt" more.

FWIW, one of the basic features of employer provided coverage (when I was in that business) was that all employees had to be covered. This meant that the insuror could expect the young, healthy workers to offset the losses on the older, higher-cost (to the insuror) workers. This is also the basic premise of the public plan proposed. By making coverage universally mandatory (or lack thereof penalized with a tax), they get $ from the workers who won't actually be costing the insuror much $ in return for the premium (or tax) paid.

In the private sector, even with very large companies (with a diverse worker population), the costs grew ever larger due to the advancement of our medical technology. A couple of heart-bypass surgeries could wipe out all the premium profits from those young workers. Why would we expect the laws of mathematics to change?

If we are going to accept the concept of universal health care coverage, then we also need to accept the fact that it's going to cost a whole lot more than O or our legislators think it will cost.

With a universal insurance program the govt will have incredible clout to negotiate fees. Right now we know that private payers pay more because fees are set at a level to account for the insurors (public & private) paying less than the billed amount. Will fees simply increase to cope with the increased negotiation clout?

As someone else mentioned, if these lawmakers are truly interested in private citizens then tort reform has to be part of the whole program from the outset. God knows they put plenty of unrelated amendments on other bills, and tort reform would be relative to this legislation. OTOH, since most of the lawmakers are lawyers, it does give one a feeling of conflict of interest when they don't even mention the issue of tort reform in such legislation.

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 08:57 AM
Yes it is. When the penalty for not providing health care ins to the employer is 8% of payroll and actual HCI cost percentage of payroll is 15%. What do you think almost every employer will do? If they want to stay competitive drop it, pay the 8%, and lower payroll cost 7%. If they did not want to end the eployer paid option it would be a 15 or 20% penalty.

Right now employers paying 15% of payroll for HCI (vs the actual average of about 11% for those providing HCI at all) can save 15% pr payroll by getting rid of coverage now. Why aren't they doing that? Under the revised plan, a company paying 15% of payroll for HCI could save 7% (15-8) by getting rid of HCI altogether. Why do you believe they will be more willing to terminate benefits to save 7% than they are now when they could save 15%?

labraiser
08-23-2009, 04:12 PM
I was stuck on the Pa turnpike a few weeks ago. I pulled over to wait out the accident clean up. I saw the car in front of me was from quebec, Canada. We got talking and i asked them what they thought of their health care since they were from canada. I didn't tell them i was for it or against it. The woman told me the average wait if you go to an emergency room is 6 hrs and if you need non emergency proceedures is about 9-12 month waiting time. This really stunned me. I asked her what the problem was, she said not enought doctors. So cost cutting is going to reduce the amount of doctors. Why choose a profession where your payment is goverment regulated. Is this what people want here? If this is enacted and the libs I meet complain about service, I'll slap each one in the head and say "don't you bitch, you support this crap public option".

tpaschal30
08-23-2009, 05:19 PM
Right now employers paying 15% of payroll for HCI (vs the actual average of about 11% for those providing HCI at all) can save 15% pr payroll by getting rid of coverage now. Why aren't they doing that? Under the revised plan, a company paying 15% of payroll for HCI could save 7% (15-8) by getting rid of HCI altogether. Why do you believe they will be more willing to terminate benefits to save 7% than they are now when they could save 15%?

It is the bailout. There is a fall back plan(public option) and they don't look like the bad guy. Let's use your numbers of 10%. If you could reduce payroll by 2% and wash your hands of administering a HI plan giving you a leg up on the competition. Who wouldn't? Owners and stockholders don't run a business to fund health care. The point is when Obama says you will get to keep your plan, in the end very few will, except Congress.

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 05:43 PM
It is the bailout. There is a fall back plan(public option) and they don't look like the bad guy. Let's use your numbers of 10%. If you could reduce payroll by 2% and wash your hands of administering a HI plan giving you a leg up on the competition. Who wouldn't? Owners and stockholders don't run a business to fund health care. The point is when Obama says you will get to keep your plan, in the end very few will, except Congress.

I'm not sure I understand what you think will happen or why. The "public option" is nothing except another insurance policy that an employee or employer can choose. As an employer, I routinle reviewed our health insurance every three years, or more frequently if face with massive premium increases. I looked at cost, services (remember, I was covered by the same plan), and the extent to which physicians used by my staff were also included in the plan under consideration.

I offered insurance to be competitive in the employment market. If I had not offered it I would have lost many of my staff. I agree that as an employer I would have preferrd to be out of the health care business entirely and I ultimately dropped all insurances after watching my costs triple in 12 years. However, the proposed public option would not have gotten me off the hook any more than a private option. I am either providing group coverage or I am not. As an employer I would prefer it if the government automatically enrolled all citizens in a government program with no involvement from me. That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.

tpaschal30
08-23-2009, 06:16 PM
I am not endorsing this answer, but here is one explanation I've heard. Anytime you unburden the private sector (ie tax cuts, or employee benefit cuts), that will be so good for the economy that productivity will increase, GDP will increase, and therefore tax revenues will increase, all without increasing the tax rate.

If this logic held true in 2001, then I assume it still is valid today?

A bureaucrat spending someone else's money on someone else and himself. Now that sounds efficient!!!!

dnf777
08-24-2009, 08:54 AM
A bureaucrat spending someone else's money on someone else and himself. Now that sounds efficient!!!!

Personally, as I stated I don't agree with that philosophy. It was what we were sold as justification for the Bush tax cuts, however, and we can see and feel how well it worked then.

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 09:31 AM
Personally, as I stated I don't agree with that philosophy. It was what we were sold as justification for the Bush tax cuts, however, and we can see and feel how well it worked then.

A socialist won't.

Everytime marginal taxes rates have been cut federal revenues have risen. Tax cuts have nothinbg to do with what has happened.

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you think will happen or why. The "public option" is nothing except another insurance policy that an employee or employer can choose. As an employer, I routinle reviewed our health insurance every three years, or more frequently if face with massive premium increases. I looked at cost, services (remember, I was covered by the same plan), and the extent to which physicians used by my staff were also included in the plan under consideration.

I offered insurance to be competitive in the employment market. If I had not offered it I would have lost many of my staff. I agree that as an employer I would have preferrd to be out of the health care business entirely and I ultimately dropped all insurances after watching my costs triple in 12 years. However, the proposed public option would not have gotten me off the hook any more than a private option. I am either providing group coverage or I am not. As an employer I would prefer it if the government automatically enrolled all citizens in a government program with no involvement from me. That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.

Yep bailout.

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 10:04 AM
Yep bailout.

Who is being bailed out? I don't understand your comment.

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 10:28 AM
.
I That would get the employer off the hook and make employers more competitive in the global market. However, that is not a proposal that is on the table.

Off the hook, bailout, pardon, or take over. There is no free lunch. Someone somewhere will have to pay. I agree it needs to get out of the employers hands, but not to the government. Patients must be the employer of the providers.

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 10:48 AM
Off the hook, bailout, pardon, or take over. There is no free lunch. Someone somewhere will have to pay. I agree it needs to get out of the employers hands, but not to the government. Patients must be the employer of the providers.
I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. The cost of that coverage becomes part of product pricing and helps make our goods less competitive in the global economy.

International trade regulations prohibit government subsidies to stimulate exports. However, removing that cost from business would make our products more competitive and increase jobs in this country. Instead, the need to pay health care contributes to businesses exporting jobs to other countries or encourages them to terminate health coverage, adding to the ranks of the uninsured. One way or another, I believe it is inevitable that employers will stop subsidizing health care benefits. The real question is how ugly will the process get.

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 01:08 PM
I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. The cost of that coverage becomes part of product pricing and helps make our goods less competitive in the global economy.

International trade regulations prohibit government subsidies to stimulate exports. However, removing that cost from business would make our products more competitive and increase jobs in this country. Instead, the need to pay health care contributes to businesses exporting jobs to other countries or encourages them to terminate health coverage, adding to the ranks of the uninsured. One way or another, I believe it is inevitable that employers will stop subsidizing health care benefits. The real question is how ugly will the process get.

Employer provided health care insurance became customary from employers working around wage controls imposed during WW2. Another example of government interferance causing unintended consequences.

code3retrievers
08-24-2009, 01:28 PM
I'm not sure I would call that a bailout. We are the only country in the world that expects employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. .

Why are we the only country to have employers pay for health insurance?

Is it because of government wage controls that were put in place long ago. The employers trying to make themsleves more competitive in the labor market began to offer insurance. Then the unions began to demand more coverage.

Gerry Clinchy
08-24-2009, 04:44 PM
I agree it needs to get out of the employers hands, but not to the government. Patients must be the employer of the providers.

This really doesn't seem to be such a bad idea, especially if put together with the idea of forming "cooperatives".

When individuals get their coverage through an employer, they're not real concerned with how much it costs the employer. If they are spending their own money, they would be more attentive to getting the most bang for their buck & fully realizing the cost of this benefit.

I could even see employers giving some of the money saved to the employee as increased wages. Such a plan would not work if the employer is penalized for doing this by a tax, though. However, if relieved of one very large expense, it could make these companies more competitive in the world market. And the employee should get a tax credit for at least a percentage of what he spends for his own health insurance.

Keep the govt out of the business of health insurance. Use such an option only as a last resort if nothing else works.

Hew
08-24-2009, 05:01 PM
My own view is that if people flock freely to a public option because it is cheaper and better than private plans, then the private plans will have to figure out how to do a better job or go out of business.
Last week you reinforced the fears of a lot of folks when you wrote, in essence, "I don't care what's in the bill now...let's get it passed and work out the details later." Now this week you're reminding us that private insurance will have to compete against govt. insurance...another common fear of the masses given that govt. insurance will be administered by the same folks who get to make the rules that oversee the supposed competition and who have already demonstrated that they don't mind going 11 trillion into debt to pay for things they already can't afford. Not exactly fair and not exactly "competition." You're not exactly helping Obama and the Democrats' cause. Good thing the White House shut down their snitch line or you'd be getting some pretty terse emails from Davie Axelrod and da boyz to chill out.

dnf777
08-24-2009, 09:54 PM
A socialist won't.

Everytime marginal taxes rates have been cut federal revenues have risen. Tax cuts have nothinbg to do with what has happened.

Sorry, but I and many economists don't buy that. Tax cuts don't have anything to do with decreased revenues? That's like saying a hole in the bucket has nothing to do with it not holding any water. Sure it's more complex than that.

When George HW Bush reneged on his famous "read my lips" promise and raised taxes, that was the beginning of the most prosperous time in modern American history. Not that it alone caused the budgets, but it showed that raising taxes does not automatically lead to doomsday and bankruptcy. His son cut taxes (during a war, which was a first in the history of man) beginning the recession we are now trying to climb out of. It did not cause the recession by itself, but it proves that cutting taxes does not automatically lead to wealth and prosperity.

Any attempts to simplify taxes and budgets in single variable terms shows a lack of appreciation of how complex national economics are. At any given time, only half of the economists know what the right answers are. The trick is knowing which ones to listen to. :D

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Last week you reinforced the fears of a lot of folks when you wrote, in essence, "I don't care what's in the bill now...let's get it passed and work out the details later." Now this week you're reminding us that private insurance will have to compete against govt. insurance...another common fear of the masses given that govt. insurance will be administered by the same folks who get to make the rules that oversee the supposed competition and who have already demonstrated that they don't mind going 11 trillion into debt to pay for things they already can't afford. Not exactly fair and not exactly "competition." You're not exactly helping Obama and the Democrats' cause. Good thing the White House shut down their snitch line or you'd be getting some pretty terse emails from Davie Axelrod and da boyz to chill out.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying that a public option was only legitimate, in my opinion, as long as it operated under the same rules as a private option and received no financial subsidies for claims or administrative costs. And, sorry, but I missed my conference call with Axelrod to discuss health insurance last week when I decided to have dinner with my grandchildren instead (true statement;-)).

Marvin S
08-24-2009, 11:17 PM
When George HW Bush reneged on his famous "read my lips" promise and raised taxes, that was the beginning of the most prosperous time in modern American history. Not that it alone caused the budgets, but it showed that raising taxes does not automatically lead to doomsday and bankruptcy. His son cut taxes (during a war, which was a first in the history of man) beginning the recession we are now trying to climb out of. It did not cause the recession by itself, but it proves that cutting taxes does not automatically lead to wealth and prosperity.

You need to stick to something you are capable of discussing at an intelligent level. It is a well known fact that when people get to keep more of the fruits of their labor, they labor at a much higher rate.


Also, Guns & Butter is not a new saying, LBJ did it in order to pass what he wanted while doing the Vietnam thing.

Also, the 1st Bush was a joke in the POTUS chair, nice guy, just not much of a leader.

But don't let facts get in the way of making some off the wall statement.

Do you have a job? :confused: You spend a lot of time making posts. ;-)

M&K's Retrievers
08-24-2009, 11:24 PM
What planet, what planet?

JD

Earth........

M&K's Retrievers
08-24-2009, 11:29 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs; And, sorry, but I missed my conference call with Axelrod to discuss health insurance last week when I decided to have dinner with my grandchildren instead (true statement;-)).[/QUOTE]

Are you braging or complaining?

JDogger
08-24-2009, 11:40 PM
Earth........

AAAARRRRGGGH!! You are just like Obama when it comes to misstatement of facts. Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!

On the planet earth, M&K. consult with RK or others here if you doubt.

JD
__________________

YardleyLabs
08-25-2009, 07:12 AM
AAAARRRRGGGH!! You are just like Obama when it comes to misstatement of facts. Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!

On the planet earth, M&K. consult with RK or others here if you doubt.

JD
__________________
Generally speaking M&K is right. I say generally since regulation of health insurance is basically a state function and there are limited Federal laws. Most states regulate the ability of insurance companies to cancel policies for reasons other than non-payment of premiums. Most also restrict the ability of companies to raise health insurance premiums based on individual claim experience or even to refuse to renew a policy based on individual experience.

However, this is actually seldom a situation that arises. Less than 10% of people buy their own insurance. It is much easier for an insurer to cancel insurance for an entire group and there are few to no restrictions on the ability of insurance companies to raise group premiums based on group claims experience. This has little effect on major companies. It is devastating for smaller companies.

With about 60 people covered under our health plan, I had an employee of three weeks suffer a heart attack that subsequently required surgery and a long rehabilitation process. He never returned to work by incurred a couple of hundred thousand in medical bills under COBRA that were charged to our experience pool. Another staff member went through in vitro fertilization to become pregnant and had multiple children born prematurely. The total cost of that was about $100 k. The impact was that no insurance company would offer coverage when it came time for renewal except our current company which raised our premiums by 80% in two years. It would have canceled us but could not under New Jersey law. This inflated premium became the base from which all other insurance companies calculated our premiums in future years, finally producing a plan that, five years later, had family premiums of $24,000/year for reduced coverage. My experience was pretty typical and is the reason why 3/4 of smaller companies offer no health benefits at all.

dnf777
08-25-2009, 02:12 PM
Do you have a job? :confused: You spend a lot of time making posts. ;-)

Do YOU have a job? You spend alot of time worrying about me.:(

Yes, I spent the past 7 years as a surgical resident and fellow, working 100-120 hours a week, despite the fed gov't limiting resident work hours to 80/week. (how many professions have their work week LIMITED to 80 hrs?) Now I have a couple of days per week out of the OR, seeing patients, many of whom do NOT work, yet can't seem to find time to show up for appointments, hence my posting time. Thanks for your concern.

Gainfully employed regards,
dave

Hew
08-25-2009, 03:04 PM
The coming face of government healthcare :D:



The phone rings and the lady of the house answers, "Hello?"
"Mrs. Sanders, please."
"Speaking."
"Mrs. Sanders, this is Dr. Jones at St. Agnes Laboratory. When your husband's doctor sent his biopsy to the lab last week, a biopsy from another Mr. Sanders arrived as well. We are now uncertain which one belongs to your husband. Frankly, either way the results are not too good."
"What do you mean?" Mrs. Sanders asks nervously.
"Well, one of the specimens tested positive for Alzheimer's and the other one tested positive for HIV. We can't tell which is which."
"That's dreadful! Can you do the test again?" questioned Mrs. Sanders.
"Normally we can, but the new health care system will only pay for these expensive tests just one time."
"Well, what am I supposed to do now?"
"The folks at Obama health care recommend that you drop your husband off somewhere in the middle of town. If he finds his way home, don't sleep with him."

Marvin S
08-25-2009, 05:51 PM
Do YOU have a job? You spend alot of time worrying about me.:( dave

dave - I knew that you were a *****, you've told us numerous times. I also know that you are a professed conservative, hope you are better at being a ***** than you are at being a conservative. If you decide to give investment advice let me know, I'm sure you'll be able to pick a sure loser.

I've been a recipient of Uncle Sam's medicare program for over a decade so speak with some knowledge about anything government. The program isn't all that bad but I sometimes wonder about reimbursement rates. I'm sure we could handle our own health care without any Government muddling. I opposed the drug rebate program.

I'm at the point in time I do as I please. I'm running for city council this November & have a tremendous amount of support. I hope that translates into actual votes. I plan to donate the majority of the stipend I receive to projects I believe the city needs. That is not announced as it is only mine & my wife's business. I also sell my son's cheese (who is a damn good cheesemaker) at the Saturday Market here + do some wholesaling as well. Plus I do other things I am able to do. I did the dog thing for 45 years but have lost enthusiasm, though I have a dog capable of AA stuff & do train regularly. We hunt & enjoy ourselves.

As for worrying about you, I don't. You are just the most fertile of all the lefty's (some of whom make sense on occasion) on this forum.

I'll ask you this question - You're helping the losers, who can't seem to keep an appointment, are you actually contributing to a better society or are you creating more permissiveness in a society that already has too much? Are they entitled to any level of care if they are too shiftless to show up for something free? It may make you feel good, but remember, you would probably be more alert with your paying customers if the candle was only burned on one end. ;-)

dnf777
08-25-2009, 07:09 PM
dave - I knew that you were a *****, you've told us numerous times. I also know that you are a professed conservative, hope you are better at being a ***** than you are at being a conservative. If you decide to give investment advice let me know, I'm sure you'll be able to pick a sure loser.

I've been a recipient of Uncle Sam's medicare program for over a decade so speak with some knowledge about anything government. The program isn't all that bad but I sometimes wonder about reimbursement rates. I'm sure we could handle our own health care without any Government muddling. I opposed the drug rebate program.

I'm at the point in time I do as I please. I'm running for city council this November & have a tremendous amount of support. I hope that translates into actual votes. I plan to donate the majority of the stipend I receive to projects I believe the city needs. That is not announced as it is only mine & my wife's business. I also sell my son's (who is a damn good cheesemaker) at the Saturday Market here + do some wholesaling as well. Plus I do other things I am able to do. I did the dog thing for 45 years but have lost enthusiasm, though I have a dog capable of AA stuff & do train regularly. We hunt & enjoy ourselves.

As for worrying about you, I don't. You are just the most fertile of all the lefty's (some of whom make sense on occasion) on this forum.

I'll ask you this question - You're helping the losers, who can't seem to keep an appointment, are you actually contributing to a better society or are you creating more permissiveness in a society that already has too much? Are they entitled to any level of care if they are too shiftless to show up for something free? It may make you feel good, but remember, you would probably be more alert with your paying customers if the candle was only burned on one end. ;-)

I don't label myself, other than to say "independent". I guess that in itself is a label though? I look at each issue, and each candidate. I have found the democratic party (and my democratic friends) MUCH more tolerant of differing views than my republican friends, who all call me names of varying degrees of civility, and make it clear that I do not, and never COULD have fit in their party. (excecpt when we're drinking whiskey after a day at the skeet range, and they've forgotten my liberal tendencies)

As for the second question, I'm not sure what you are asking. They may tick me off, as anyone would be for having their time wasted, but I treat all folks, regardless of their ability to pay. If someone no-shows 3 times without explanation, they are dismissed from the practice. That is a relatively common policy. Its not meant to be punitive, its just that (as you mention) it begins to impact other more responsible patients, and apparently, they're not interested in care anyway.

My 403b is up 41% this year, but I'm not giving out advice!:p Besides, it probably won't last.

Marvin S
08-26-2009, 12:19 PM
As for the second question, I'm not sure what you are asking.

My experience is, when someone earns something, they appreciate it! That's the point I was trying to make.

If you go to the Food Bank for your chow, get free medical, can draw a little Welfare, get UIC, why should you contribute? Who's at fault, the enablers that provide this without asking questions & setting standards.

dnf777
08-26-2009, 05:35 PM
My experience is, when someone earns something, they appreciate it! That's the point I was trying to make.

If you go to the Food Bank for your chow, get free medical, can draw a little Welfare, get UIC, why should you contribute? Who's at fault, the enablers that provide this without asking questions & setting standards.

I assume you're not saying that doctors should turn people away, if perhaps they just lost their jobs and insurance? Or if a new widow lost her husband's coverage?

Marvin S
08-27-2009, 11:53 AM
I assume you're not saying that doctors should turn people away, if perhaps they just lost their jobs and insurance? Or if a new widow lost her husband's coverage?

:) :) - & you screen for this? But I do believe you know who we were talking about, I'll give you that much credit.

dnf777
08-27-2009, 12:52 PM
:) :) - & you screen for this? But I do believe you know who we were talking about, I'll give you that much credit.

I don't have to screen. Most proud people who are victims of this economy volunteer that they lost their jobs after x number of years, and have no insurance. (or are waiting for medicare)