I can't buy healthcare insurance

A place to discuss anything... except credit cards!
26 posts
User avatar
Mogul of Pineapples
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:32 pm
Location: Smogland

Postby Mogul of Pineapples » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:25 pm

Floppster wrote:Doctors will have to charge less since they don't have to be afraid of being sued left, right and center, therefore the insurance has to pay them less.


Malpractice lawsuits account for less than 1% of healthcare costs. (http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf)

Litigation is hardly the problem. Why should a patient not have a right to sue if the doctor was obviously proven to be negligent?
Disclosure: I am a moderator/paid staff of this site, which does have advertising relationships with some credit cards that are discussed and linked to. Regardless, anything I say is my honest opinion.

Current Cards:
American Express: Blue Cash, Simply Cash Bank of America: WorldPoints Platinum Plus Chase: Amazon, British Airways, Cash Plus Rewards, Freedom, Ink Cash Citi: Thank You Premier, Dividend Platinum Select Discover: More
Primary Everyday Card: American Express Blue Cash
Primary Travel Card: Chase Sapphire Preferred


DoingHomework
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby DoingHomework » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:16 pm

I was going to say that but was too lazy to look up the stats.

Doctors spend a lot of years in school (and spend a lot of money on that) so I think they deserve to make a good living. I also think that if they make an occasional mistake theyshoul dnot lose everything in a lawsuit. Unfortunately their mistakes can make people suffer for the rest of their life. So there has to be a happy median where they can be sued but only for limited amounts.

User avatar
Pete838
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:26 am
Location: Florida

Postby Pete838 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:28 pm

Floppster wrote: I just believe that the 2 major things a Government should be take care of are:

1.) Education (Kids will be our future)
2.) Health care (Healthy People work more and pay more taxes)


Perhaps this is something that should be addressed at the state level. The federal government is too massive and the problems vary from state to state and region to region. What works in MA might not work in AL. A bureaucrat administrator in DC has very little insight into the problems that a KS farm boy faces, yet the federal government imposes one-size fit all policies.
Allowing the states to make their own policy on education or medicine would also allow Americans the freedom to live in a state where there is more or less government services according to their choice, and would make the services be paid for rather than being added to the deficit, as states do not have the power to borrow on the credit of the American People or print money. For instance if a citizen wanted more public health care choices they could move to a state that offers it and pay the higher taxes that come with it. I prefer to make my own choices and keep my tax burden low, so I would live in a state commensurate with my needs.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Cucumber
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:44 am
Location: Zuma

Postby Cucumber » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:29 pm

But states have always had the ability to make some kind of healthcare reform on the state level and like 48 out of 50 never did.

Don't you thing that everyone needs to be given the ability to buy insurance if wanted? You can't right now and won't be able to until 2014. If the republipigs mess it could not happen then either :mad:
OBAMA
Stop talking crap about him!

User avatar
Pete838
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:26 am
Location: Florida

Postby Pete838 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:00 pm

Hawaii had a state health plan and it flopped. Colossal fail. People that had coverage dropped it until they got sick.

Massachusetts has a state health plan, but it is bankrupting both the state and the citizens that aren't subsidized by the state, and the state has begun selecting groups of residents to cut benefits. First, I believe, were legal immigrants.

These states are microcosms of the nation, the only difference being that the federal government can borrow money to temporarily float its red ink. Sooner or later, though, the system consumes so much and the debt becomes so great that it is not sustainable. On a forum where people are self described credit junkies and experts this should be a simple concept. The only way this works is with borrowed money, and then it only lasts so long.

There are parts of the health reform law that are attractive, but there are trade offs; consequences, if you will. Take the pre-existing conditions requirement. OK, so now someone with AIDS can get coverage for the same price as someone that is healthy, except now instead of the healthy person paying $200 a month they are paying $350. That's a great deal for the person with AIDS, but a terrible deal for the healthy person that paid $200 before the law went into effect. Maybe now the healthy people will drop their coverage and opt to pay the fine to Uncle Sam instead, and since the AIDS guy still needs care his insurance goes up to $1600 a month (less healthy people buying in, why should they? Just get insurance when they get sick.).
Of course, many of us recognize this for what it is; an attempt to sink the private health industry once and for all so single-payer can be implemented.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Mogul of Pineapples
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:32 pm
Location: Smogland

Postby Mogul of Pineapples » Sun Jan 02, 2011 2:36 am

Take the pre-existing conditions requirement. OK, so now someone with AIDS can get coverage for the same price as someone that is healthy, except now instead of the healthy person paying $200 a month they are paying $350. That's a great deal for the person with AIDS, but a terrible deal for the healthy person that paid $200 before the law went into effect.


The problem is that if you have a pre-existing condition, something as simple as acne, you can't get insurance at any price. If I were to pay 1,000% or 2,000% the normal premium I still cannot attain health insurance. That is the problem with the system is that mostly everyone has a pre-existing condition and can't get insurance because of it. I'm not asking for everyone to pay the same rate whether healthy or sick that would be unfair to the healthy. But there must be some level of insurance available to everyone at some cost. If it's many times more than normal that wouldn't bother me that much if the condition warranted it.
Disclosure: I am a moderator/paid staff of this site, which does have advertising relationships with some credit cards that are discussed and linked to. Regardless, anything I say is my honest opinion.

Current Cards:
American Express: Blue Cash, Simply Cash Bank of America: WorldPoints Platinum Plus Chase: Amazon, British Airways, Cash Plus Rewards, Freedom, Ink Cash Citi: Thank You Premier, Dividend Platinum Select Discover: More
Primary Everyday Card: American Express Blue Cash
Primary Travel Card: Chase Sapphire Preferred



Return to “The Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests