American Healthcare: a Hostage Crisis that's Killing our Economy

[g5000]

Let's travel back in time 60 years...

FARMER: What will my toddler son do when he grows up if he isn't going to be a farmer, dad blast it?

PSYCHIC: (*peers into crystal ball*) Your son is going to be in charge of the maintenance for satellite uplink/downlink terminals at Verizon.

FARMER: What's a satellite, and WHAT THE HELL IS A VERIZON!?!

PSYCHIC: I don't know, but if I were you, I'd be whipping him with a switch if he doesn't get straight A's in mathematics and science.

FARMER: Will he be handsome? Will he be rich?

PSYCHIC: Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see...

 

[rdean]

You don't honestly believe Republicans give a flying fucking turd about whether Americans have health care. This is the party of let him die. They are who they are.

 

[Arianrhod]

...please stop trying to project my very personal contempt and disdain for you onto everyone else.

Unnecessary.

Well, it's true that most people have you on ignore, and so don't realize that you're trying to equate them with dog shit.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Apparently you're not that interested in the topic, though, if you have time for this sort of thing.

 

[TexM3]

The problem cost shifting and monopolistic practices by the healthcare industry causing out of control pricing. The regulators have been captured.

You are so dumb regarding health care costs!
1) Doctors tell us they cause $850 billion a year in excess claims paid by insurance companies out of fear of lawsuits.
Proof that they do this is in this study!
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf

90% of physicians surveyed say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year.
--- Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
--- 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.
"Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the
1946 Federal Tort Claims Act. "
-- BUT........Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.
Consider that fact that of the physicians interviewed 52% DID NOT practice defensive medicine!
Who were they? Doctors contracted by federal government!
WHY did these doctors NOT practice "defensive medicine"??? 1946 Tort reform!

The insurance companies don't care as they simple raise the premiums.
If lawyers' $270 BILLION a year income was taxed 10% as ACA taxes tanning salons, that $27 billion would provide $5,000 premium for each of the
less then 4 million true Americans that want and need insurance.
Simple fact.

So lawsuits are the main reason why it cost 3x more, adjusted for inflation, to have a baby now then it did in the 60s?

How the cost of giving birth in the U.S. has TRIPLED since 1996 to $9,775 - thanks to expensive fees for everything from an epidural to placenta removal

At the bottom of the link price transparency is being addressed. Why the huge delta? Is Maricopa Medical Center immune from lawsuits?

You dummy! It isn't ONLY lawsuits!
Ever hear of EMTALA??? Of course not you are a dummy.
Back in 1986 Congress thought they were being helpful to the uninsured and passed this law. Look it up and then you'll understand why hospitals
charge $3,000 or more for a CAT scan that actually costs and I've got the statistics to show it...less the $100 to perform...i.e. overhead salaries,etc!
Hospitals making nearly 3,000% markup!
And then you have idiots today doing what NOT one of us with common sense would do years ago!
Look at this and translate into increasing stupid claims filed by these idiots. And then who pays for them? Higher premiums dummy!
View attachment 62693

View attachment 62692

And you mention just ONE reason why health care costs have skyrocketed!
Dummy you know nothing about health care finances.

No, I said cost shifting and corruption in my original post. No need for the personal insults asshole.
Go back and read my post #10. I accept apologizes.
Care to address why is Maricopa Medical Center able to charge a much lower fixed price for childbirth than their competitors? If its not fraudulent billing practices by other hospitals what else could it be?
Why can't more hospitals operate like this with transparent pricing: Surgery Center of Oklahoma | Free market-loving, price-displaying, state-of-the-art, AAAHC accredited, doctor owned, multispecialty surgical facility in central OK.
We could at least start to shop around for real price discovery.

Again... you don't seem to comprehend the affect of EMTALA on hospitals. Listen to what a CEO said...
As the death spiral of more hospitals that did as the hospital CEO said when asked how hospitals recover these "uninsured" costs?
"How do hospitals deal with the cost of the uninsured? Like any business, we pass it on to the paying customers!”
Florida Hospital Tampa 3100 East Fletcher Avenue Tampa, FL 33613
In 2011 they sent Medicare 1,362 claims for CAT scan no contrast.
Each claim averaged $3,463, i.e. what the hospital billed Medicare...
The hospital's ACTUAL COSTS to perform the CAT SCAN was $57 a mark up 5,975.44%
Consequently the billing of Medicare because of EMTALA of 6,000% over costs makes up their uncompensated expenses!
HOW STUPID!
These are real costs being passed on to the paying customers as the above CEO said!

I understand perfectly...I don't buy that's the main driver of cost.

 

[dblack]

Uh.. I think you meant that as a response to someone else.

Did you not write: "Basically giving the insurance companies everything they get with ACA with nothing in return."

And my response was to show you how the insurance companies are NOT happy with ACA even though you wrote the above???

Still not sure how it relates to my post. My point was that Cruz, the rest of the Republicans, and the Democrats with the exception of Sanders, have no intention of making any meaningful changes to health care policy.

That is completely untrue. They don't intend to make any changes that you LIKE, perhaps, but that's not the same as "no meaningful changes". There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Cruz, for example, will not make every effort to keep his campaign promises, and one of his major promises is a repeal of Obamacare and institution of a free-market healthcare system. Again, it might not be what you like or want, but no one can say that that isn't "meaningful change".

No, I've read his proposals, and they don't make any meaningful changes. They "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives. That's the same thing with a different name. The only meaningful change Cruz intends to make is getting rid of guarantee issue which is fine in-and-of itself (it's an irrational requirement). But guarantee issue is the justification for the mandate/tax-incentives. Without, there's no reason to gift the insurance industry with mandated customers.

Yeah, um . . . tax incentives are NOT the same thing as a mandate.

That would be the source of our disagreement then. Functionally, and financially, they are exactly the same thing. One just sounds better because it's framed as a 'discount'. But when you think it through, the net result is the same - people who don't do as they're told pay more in taxes.

 

[beagle9]

So lawsuits are the main reason why it cost 3x more, adjusted for inflation, to have a baby now then it did in the 60s?

How the cost of giving birth in the U.S. has TRIPLED since 1996 to $9,775 - thanks to expensive fees for everything from an epidural to placenta removal

At the bottom of the link price transparency is being addressed. Why the huge delta? Is Maricopa Medical Center immune from lawsuits?

You dummy! It isn't ONLY lawsuits!
Ever hear of EMTALA??? Of course not you are a dummy.
Back in 1986 Congress thought they were being helpful to the uninsured and passed this law. Look it up and then you'll understand why hospitals
charge $3,000 or more for a CAT scan that actually costs and I've got the statistics to show it...less the $100 to perform...i.e. overhead salaries,etc!
Hospitals making nearly 3,000% markup!
And then you have idiots today doing what NOT one of us with common sense would do years ago!
Look at this and translate into increasing stupid claims filed by these idiots. And then who pays for them? Higher premiums dummy!
View attachment 62693

View attachment 62692

And you mention just ONE reason why health care costs have skyrocketed!
Dummy you know nothing about health care finances.

Do you suggest that people quit living and live in a bubble to protect hospitals from going rogue on us ? If we had a card that could be used where we choose to use it, then wouldn't that put the free market system in check on bilking our government and we the tax payers out of our money ?

No, people may shop around for the best service irrespective of price. Again, how do we pay for it and it still be a win, win?

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 20% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

 

[dblack]

You dummy! It isn't ONLY lawsuits!
Ever hear of EMTALA??? Of course not you are a dummy.
Back in 1986 Congress thought they were being helpful to the uninsured and passed this law. Look it up and then you'll understand why hospitals
charge $3,000 or more for a CAT scan that actually costs and I've got the statistics to show it...less the $100 to perform...i.e. overhead salaries,etc!
Hospitals making nearly 3,000% markup!
And then you have idiots today doing what NOT one of us with common sense would do years ago!
Look at this and translate into increasing stupid claims filed by these idiots. And then who pays for them? Higher premiums dummy!
View attachment 62693

View attachment 62692

And you mention just ONE reason why health care costs have skyrocketed!
Dummy you know nothing about health care finances.

Do you suggest that people quit living and live in a bubble to protect hospitals from going rogue on us ? If we had a card that could be used where we choose to use it, then wouldn't that put the free market system in check on bilking our government and we the tax payers out of our money ?

No, people may shop around for the best service irrespective of price. Again, how do we pay for it and it still be a win, win?

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

 

[beagle9]

Do you suggest that people quit living and live in a bubble to protect hospitals from going rogue on us ? If we had a card that could be used where we choose to use it, then wouldn't that put the free market system in check on bilking our government and we the tax payers out of our money ?

No, people may shop around for the best service irrespective of price. Again, how do we pay for it and it still be a win, win?

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

 

[dblack]

No, people may shop around for the best service irrespective of price. Again, how do we pay for it and it still be a win, win?

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

Yes. "If".

And even "if", the best case scenario is that it represents only some of us. The majority has their way with the minority. Sucks to be too few, eh?

 

[jillian]

No, people may shop around for the best service irrespective of price. Again, how do we pay for it and it still be a win, win?

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

 

[dblack]

. Nope people can't do anything except go where the insurance company tells them to go, and that isn't always what's in the best interest of the patient.... A friend of mine has insurance on his wife, and she needed to see a back specialist, so she chose the best in the area, but the insurance carrier said nope you have to go here instead. So instead of correcting the problem, she had to settle for shots. It's the only thing the insurance would allow. Tex do you know what your talking about or asking about ?

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

 

[jillian]

So let's take a look at what "insurance" is. Definition of any insurance is: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

How does a company determine the premium? Risk analysis done by professionals called "Actuaries".
So a $100,000 20 year term life insurance for a 40 year old smoker is $30.00 For a 49 year old: $60.00
Non-smoker: age 40 $15/month Age 49.. $25/month.
IT IS CALLED RISK ANALYSIS and what I've shown you is a very simple illustration of smoking as a health risk raises premiums.

So does that make sense that just a simple issue like smoking nearly doubles the cost as the "actuaries" having looked at the history of paying benefits
shows more deaths for a smoker versus non smoker.

Obviously for something more complicated as the above illustration takes IN considerably MORE risk variables...including what specialists were in the area of the woman's back issues. But of course grossly ignorant people don't comprehend these variables and bitch and moan when the simplest solution is
TORT reform would reduce dramatically health claim costs which in turn would reduce premiums.
PLUS ignorant people don't seem to understand health insurance premiums are regulated by states. All companies have to justify what is called the
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) which is the percent of premium an insurer spends on claims and expenses . So if the $850 Billion a year in "defensive medicine" costs is reduced by 2t0% this $170 billion in savings would mean lower premiums. That simple.
Proof this would work is the 1946 Federal Tort Act that prevents doctors under contract with federal government can't be sued. Therefore those doctors
don't practice "defensive medicine" i.e. ordering duplicate tests,etc...
Do the same Tort reform for non-federal physicians would save billions of phony claims that the insurance companies simply pay.

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

 

[beagle9]

 

[dblack]

. I say let's cut out the middle man, and lets create a government non-profit pool of Americans that is so large, that what ever an Americans healthcare need is, that it will be taken care of...

No more worrying about private insurance having profits on their minds in which creates winners and losers, and in which causes the constant problems of who gets accepted, who gets better treated with quality care, or who is taken care of better, verses who gets poorly treated in the situation, and even mistreated because they don't have enough to pay for the quality of care that the next human being has in such a volital life and imperfect world.... And what all because of less money and/or the lack there of in ones life at any given time (on the roller coaster ride of life) that determines ones value over another in life ??

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

It didn't work with ACA. It rarely works these days. In fact, many people think it should never work - that the majority will should be all that matters.

 

[jillian]

But that's not cutting out the middle man. It's replacing the middle man with government.

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

It didn't work with ACA. It rarely works these days. In fact, many people think it should never work - that the majority will should be all that matters.

it did work with the ACA. there was nothing constitutional about it. right-wingers knew that when the heritage foundation came up with the plan. if a republican president did it, you'd be all about how it encouraged personal responsibility (which is how the heritage foundation sold it).

the majority will should never be what matters when dealing with constitutional issues. the torch and pitchfork crowd always needs to be controlled.... but the right whined the same way when Brown v Board of Ed came down.

 

[dblack]

. If the government is of we the people, for the people and by the people, then it is not the middle man, but a mere extension of us.

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

It didn't work with ACA. It rarely works these days. In fact, many people think it should never work - that the majority will should be all that matters.

it did work with the ACA. there was nothing constitutional about it. right-wingers knew that when the heritage foundation came up with the plan. if a republican president did it, you'd be all about how it encouraged personal responsibility (which is how the heritage foundation sold it).

The Heritage Foundation was wrong. They were willing to sellout individual rights to the insurance industry. But it was Democrats who actually implemented their insidious plan.

 

[jillian]

we elect people. they vote for things. if you don't like that, vote for different people.

and we the people voted for this president twice.

i'll also point out that the government for and by the people was set up to exclude most potential voters.

The idea that government, even in a pure democracy, represents the will of the people is false. It represents the will of the majority. Which all too often will happily trample all over the will of the minority.

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

It didn't work with ACA. It rarely works these days. In fact, many people think it should never work - that the majority will should be all that matters.

it did work with the ACA. there was nothing constitutional about it. right-wingers knew that when the heritage foundation came up with the plan. if a republican president did it, you'd be all about how it encouraged personal responsibility (which is how the heritage foundation sold it).

The Heritage Foundation was wrong. They were willing to sellout individual rights to the insurance industry. But it was Democrats who actually implemented their insidious plan.

The heritage foundation any wrong. This president could give you everything the right wants and they'd still be insane Obama deranged loons.

 

[Silhouette]

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

Readers note: a behavior is not a "legal minority"..

 

[dblack]

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

Readers note: a behavior is not a "legal minority"..

We're not talking about "legal" minorities. We're talking about actual minorities, i.e. people who don't agree with the will of the majority.

 

[beagle9]

well, it often represents the will of the majority. but when the majority wants something that abuses the minority, that's where the high Court steps in. (well assuming someone starts a case...which they usually do). the right's problem is it doesn't like when the court rules.... unless of course, it enables right-wingers.

Readers note: a behavior is not a "legal minority"..

We're not talking about "legal" minorities. We're talking about actual minorities, i.e. people who don't agree with the will of the majority.

. All depends on the reason for disagreeing with the majority or the minority as to whether the nation should agree or not with either group no matter how large or small it is.