Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sowell calls that "the fallacy of unlimited resources." We can think about the lives saved. What you are missing are the lives that would have been saved had more money been available for whatever.same thing with mammograms, pap smears, childhood vaccinations and the list goes on
Neither of you bothered to read the article.
The tests are not free. If you add up the total costs for all tests and then weigh that against the cost for treating diseases detected by the tests there is no gain.
I realize it is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, that screenings should be cheaper than treating diseases, but on a global scale it simply isnt true.
I did respond to your article and put up one of my own, but lets just think about the humanity of this instead of just the cost. The lives that are saved. That is surely worth quite a bit. Saving lives.
Neither of you bothered to read the article.
The tests are not free. If you add up the total costs for all tests and then weigh that against the cost for treating diseases detected by the tests there is no gain.
I realize it is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, that screenings should be cheaper than treating diseases, but on a global scale it simply isnt true.
a simple blood test for Prostrate cancer is more expensive than treating someone who has it?....a Colonoscopy is more expensive than treating someone who has Colon cancer?.....
yes. Because statistically speaking, only colonoscopies have actually shown to be helping in early detection and reducing the cancer deaths - neither mammograms, nor paps, nor prostate screening has shown that. And it is not already recommended by corresponding medical boards and therefore not covered.
American medicine is all driven by cost-effectiveness - all the studies are primed ONLY for that. And recommendations from those type of research are mandatory. Which means they are already not covered, because they are not recommended.
Sowell calls that "the fallacy of unlimited resources." We can think about the lives saved. What you are missing are the lives that would have been saved had more money been available for whatever.Neither of you bothered to read the article.
The tests are not free. If you add up the total costs for all tests and then weigh that against the cost for treating diseases detected by the tests there is no gain.
I realize it is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, that screenings should be cheaper than treating diseases, but on a global scale it simply isnt true.
I did respond to your article and put up one of my own, but lets just think about the humanity of this instead of just the cost. The lives that are saved. That is surely worth quite a bit. Saving lives.
But this is typical lib-speak. Another version of "we're doing this for the children!"
Sowell calls that "the fallacy of unlimited resources." We can think about the lives saved. What you are missing are the lives that would have been saved had more money been available for whatever.Neither of you bothered to read the article.
The tests are not free. If you add up the total costs for all tests and then weigh that against the cost for treating diseases detected by the tests there is no gain.
I realize it is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, that screenings should be cheaper than treating diseases, but on a global scale it simply isnt true.
I did respond to your article and put up one of my own, but lets just think about the humanity of this instead of just the cost. The lives that are saved. That is surely worth quite a bit. Saving lives.
But this is typical lib-speak. Another version of "we're doing this for the children!"
Well, just talking off the top of my head I can list a few good things.
You will not be denied for a pre-existing condition if you get sick and you won't be kicked off your insurance if you become sick no matter what the condition.
You can stay on your parents plan until you are 26.
You can keep the insurance you have or you can pick one of the exchanges and more info. is coming out about them in October.
If you have Medicare the doughnut hole will slowly start closing and eventually be gone.
More preventative services will be covered under Medicare that were not before.
Medicaid coverage will expand for folks that need it.
I'm sure there's more if I went and looked but this is just a few basic points.
Are you 100% positive those are all good points? Why should parents be forced to support their children until the age of 26? Shouldn't they be able to tell them that they are adults and to get their own insurance, and take advantage of the lower rates?
Huh? It's no one's fault if they have a heart attack. It is someone's fault if they lie on an application and claim they don't smoke. See the difference?Yeah except that isn't what happens. I realize the free market is like another planet to you.
But I'll try to explain. An insurance policy is a contract signed by both sides. The insurer must cover you based on the conditions set forth in the contract. Unfortunately people tend to lie. So when they say they are non smokers and then suffer a massive heart attack at age 35 because they smoke like crazy, the insurance company denies the claim based on the initial fraud of the applicant. Whose fault is that?
whose fault is it if the person doesn't smoke and has a heart attack?......whose fault is it if the person gets some form of Cancer?.....whose fault is it if they get MS?......whose fault is it if they get Parkinson's?.....whose fault is it if they get Epilepsy?......whether you want to believe it or Rabbi.....some people get legitimately sick.....and many have been dropped by the Ins Co.......whose fault is that?.....
List the good thing about Obama care...
If your an illegal, deadbeat ,or welfare mom its all good , if your a responsible person your screwed !
Illegal? No.
Deadbeat? Law makes it harder for you to be one
Welfare mom? Largely unaffected.
Man, a good misinformation campaign can go a long way.
Typical response from an American hater.....
Huh? It's no one's fault if they have a heart attack. It is someone's fault if they lie on an application and claim they don't smoke. See the difference?whose fault is it if the person doesn't smoke and has a heart attack?......whose fault is it if the person gets some form of Cancer?.....whose fault is it if they get MS?......whose fault is it if they get Parkinson's?.....whose fault is it if they get Epilepsy?......whether you want to believe it or Rabbi.....some people get legitimately sick.....and many have been dropped by the Ins Co.......whose fault is that?.....
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
You dont' get it. How many lives are lost because money that could have been spent on finding cures is spent instead on expensive screenings that are unnecessary?Sowell calls that "the fallacy of unlimited resources." We can think about the lives saved. What you are missing are the lives that would have been saved had more money been available for whatever.I did respond to your article and put up one of my own, but lets just think about the humanity of this instead of just the cost. The lives that are saved. That is surely worth quite a bit. Saving lives.
But this is typical lib-speak. Another version of "we're doing this for the children!"
I understand what you are trying to say, but for me, the lives saved from preventative screenings is more important than cost, more preventative screenings means more things-mostly cancer caught early enough to save lives. I can understand some things not being done like a chest xray for example unless there is a problem and I can understand not doing a mammogram until 50. But other than that, I have seen a lot of info. over the years that shows preventative care saves lives and saved healthcare costs. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree at this point. It happens.
Huh? It's no one's fault if they have a heart attack. It is someone's fault if they lie on an application and claim they don't smoke. See the difference?
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
You can no longer lose your job and not get medical insurance after you find employment because of an illness that occurred under your previous medical coverage.
You can no longer be denied medical insurance for a childhood illness such as cancer.
You can no longer lose your job and not get medical insurance after you find employment because of an illness that occurred under your previous medical coverage.
You can no longer be denied medical insurance for a childhood illness such as cancer.
Yes, let's require coverage for pre-existing conditions for all insurance. That way, you wouldn't have to buy homeowner's insurance until house catches fire...
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
You are wrong.
Huh? It's no one's fault if they have a heart attack. It is someone's fault if they lie on an application and claim they don't smoke. See the difference?
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
bullshit.....i met quit a few people in the course of delivering their mail that had that happen to them to the point were they had to sell the house because of medical bills.....i am glad i cleared that up.....
According to what? I understand that the new exchanges are supposed to increase competition but really all they are is a store. Essentially, it gives you some insight as to the various insurance available BUT that only is going to increase the visibility NOT the number of insurers. You make the claim that will happen but I see nothing that backs that claim up. Then there still is the employer provided insurance. That kills ALL competition for the reasons that I outlined earlier and is a plague on the insurance market.It's nice to see someone put out well thought out objections (not the standard "this is the worst legislation EVER!!1!!1!").
However, on the actual mechanics of what's going to happen, I think you've got the wrong picture. The point of exchanges is to generate competition and it looks like they're going to be able to do that. New insurers are entering the individual market in many states and there's going to be robust competition on a number of plan options in most places. That's not going to be true everywhere at first, but it looks like 90% of individual market consumers are going to be buying in more competitive markets next year. That's part of why the premiums in the exchanges next year are looking the way they are (i.e. lower than expected).
That is one reason why I stated the exchanges were a GOOD idea. That does not mean that completion is necessarily going to be better though. The exchanges can be voluntary as well and virtually all insurers would use them as almost all car sales companies congregate the customers go to those places and that is where the business lies. That might be good for the consumer BUT I already gave you that and it is not good when rapped in the 2000 other pages of legislation.Moreover, this is competition on price and quality (including things like the provider network included, etc), not on the ability to cull undesirable customers and shed risk. Prices now have meaning, since the market will be organized (i.e. you can make apples-to-apples comparisons between competing bronze plans, or between competing silver plans, etc) and you know what you're getting. Transparency and the ready availability of information important to the decision-making process is going to make things better for consumers, and at the same time it's going to make insurers accountable in a way they haven't been before when they could hide behind a byzantine market structure (see the example out of Oregon in my first post).
But that was my entire point: that is a HORRIBLE thing. I WANT that to erode. Employer provided care is a disease in the whole system. It should have been phased out and made entirely illegal.More importantly, the employer-based insurance situation is going to evolve over the next decade. The employer mandate isn't there to encourage employers to start offering coverage: ~94% of employers with 50 or more employees already offer coverage. The primary objective is to prevent the erosion of employer-based coverage once the incentives of the individual market change next year.
IF that occurs, that would be a good thing. I am skeptical that it will happen though. Employers choose plans because they are getting something out of it essentially kickbacks and a company that looks out for the employer rather than the individual. If it does happen, then I will have to admit, that would be another positive in the plan.But small employers are going to be able to use SHOP exchanges beginning next year. In some states next year (and in all states starting in 2015) that's going to allow an employee choice option, meaning employers can specify a contribution and let their employees go shop for coverage on their own, instead of having the employer choose a company plan for everyone. Effectively employer-sponsored coverage will then begin to act more like the individual market, with employees choosing the right plans for their families directly from the marketplace. Starting in 2017, large employers with more than 100 employees can begin entering the exchanges and doing this, as well (this is a state prerogative).
I never made that assertion BUT they are going to begin to receive some things for free and they are going to be subsidized as well. If you think that things are going to stop there though, I think you are being naive about how politicians work. There are going to be pushes and promises made continually with small childrens faces on commercials about forcing one thing or the other to be subsidized. Another reason that I dont want the government determining what must be provided and whether or not that coverage should be 100 percent. They are going to start to get involved in places that politicians simply do not belong.That means even if the percentage of folks with employer-based insurance remains the same, the market and incentives at work are going to shift dramatically over the next decade as more and more people are empowered to make their own choices and do their own shopping.
That's the market for insurance. In the market for actual care, there will be changes to incentives too, since cost-sharing is an important piece of the insurance puzzle. The idea that people aren't going to be charged isn't correct, exchange plans do have a fair amount of cost-sharing. The only things exempt from cost-sharing are evidence-based preventive services. Other things will be subject to deductibles and coinsurance, etc. The exchanges are going to have plenty of plans with enough cost-sharing to qualify for coupling with an HSA if shoppers want that. So the notion that people are about to be getting everything free isn't correct.
List the good thing about Obama care...
If your an illegal, deadbeat ,or welfare mom its all good , if your a responsible person your screwed !
Illegal? No.
Deadbeat? Law makes it harder for you to be one
Welfare mom? Largely unaffected.
Man, a good misinformation campaign can go a long way.
List the good thing about Obama care...
If your an illegal, deadbeat ,or welfare mom its all good , if your a responsible person your screwed !
Illegal? No.
Deadbeat? Law makes it harder for you to be one
Welfare mom? Largely unaffected.
Man, a good misinformation campaign can go a long way.
Really. That is rather ignorant as the changes force subsidies for those that are below a specific line to complete subsidy for the welfare queen.
So, no. Largely unaffected is bubkus.
