Originally Posted By mawnck >>If you are an American citizen on American soil no agency should be allowed to hold you without trial by civilian court.<< Agree, 1 million percent.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "And with that statement, you've re-entered the "ok, he's crazy. Stop paying attention now" part of my brain where you've previously resided." Bill Clinton is often referred to as the first black president.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's worth noting that teen pregnancy rates, after climbing for years, finally reversed and went down after Clinton instituted more sensible guidelines on sex ed, etc. After W went back to "abstinence only" sex ed, the rates climbed again. Quel suprise.
Originally Posted By barboy Now that Obama and just about every other potential Chief doesn't want to "produce the bodies" of US nationals I'll be going for Paul. Without habeas corpus in the US I'm happy that I spend 70% of my time in a place that does honor the doctrine.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Change? Well, my lesbian friend in the military feels pretty good about it. So does her wife.
Originally Posted By Donny to bad President Obama is against Gay Marriage A quote from President Obama "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman... Q: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition? A: No I would not. Because historically we have defined marriage in our constitution, it's been a matter of state law."
Originally Posted By skinnerbox That's an old quote and you know it, Donny. Obama has recently stated that his attitude towards gay marriage is changing. He's not dead set against it like he used to be. Quit trying to make Obama look like a total loser. Your smear job is transparent at best. We're still not falling for it. Go peddle your Obama Derangement Syndrome some place else.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox As for 'change'... We can finally move to another part of the country next year and not have to worry about buying health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Until recently, we've been unable to leave Northern California and Kaiser "we couldn't cure a ham" Permanente's 'coverage area' without losing our health insurance completely. Medicare is still many years down the road, and neither one of us can work full-time for a corporation that provides health insurance coverage because of chronic health issues, which means we have to provide our own health care coverage through individual policies. Kaiser has been draining our retirement nest egg with 10% premium increases every single year, while the quality of care has declined and the out-of-pocket expenses have steadily increased. As much as we love the Bay Area, which has been our home for well over 20 years, we can no longer afford to live here, especially given the cost of health care. But we've been stuck here until the health care reform started kicking in, because of not being able to purchase health insurance elsewhere with pre-existing conditions (with the exception of Massachusetts, which has it's own problems. It's not that much cheaper than California, the equivalent HMO insurance coverage in the greater Boston area is actually more expensive than what we're currently paying Kaiser, and you have the added costs of dealing with cold, snowy winters). We'll be moving to another part of the nation next year, we just have no idea where we'll be moving to at this time. But now that we don't have to go completely without health insurance, which for us, is literally a death sentence, we'll have the ability to relocate to an area with a lower cost of living. How's that for 'change you can believe in'? Works for me!
Originally Posted By Donny skinnerbox. I wonder if we can agree with this. A friend of mine recently went to the hospital for Broncitis he spent one day in the Hospital and they charged him $8,000.00 now he will not have to worry because his insurance will pay for it but to me that amount is extremely suspect.As a member of the TeaParty I do not like stupid regulations but doesnt this need to be taken care of before we the tax payers take the bill ?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox First of all, if you're truly concerned about the rising cost of health care, then you need to support single payer, or what some call "Medicare for all." The main reason health care costs are skyrocketing in our nation is because of for-profit health insurance companies, who act as middle men to extract anywhere from 18 cents to 30 cents out of every dollar you give them in the form of policy premiums. Their executives get hundreds of millions of dollars in annual compensation, while you continue to get more and more denials and higher premium/out-of-pocket expenses. Their salaries and bonuses continue to rise, while we continue to get less. And they aren't providing any actual "health care" whatsoever. They are simply middle men extracting money out of our wallets and charging insane 'administrative costs' for the privilege of doing so. And as the insurance policies cost more and provide less, more people drop out. And as fewer people participate in the system, as fewer people pay to receive healthcare, costs overall rise because running hospitals and clinics are fixed costs. You have to have so many doctors and nurses on staff in a clean and functional environment, regardless of how many patients come and go for services. Medicare, OTOH, provides healthcare coverage but for a fraction of what the for-profit health insurance companies take, about 3%. Compare that to the 18% to 30% that Wellpoint and United Health take to 'run' their companies. (And for the record, I consider Kaiser to be for-profit in their behavior. The 'not-for-profit' tax status is a magic trick. They still take about 30% for administrative costs from the premiums and co-pays, and give any profit that remains to their not-for-profit research foundation. They don't have shareholders, but their executives still receive insane compensation like the other for-profit insurance companies.) And as far as making everyone participate in health insurance programs, that will tend to drive the costs of health care down, since more people will be sharing the burden of those costs across the board. It will force companies to become more competitive with each other, now that pre-existing conditions aren't a barrier to purchasing coverage. Having a public option would have been even more of a cost savings for healthcare consumers, because the government through Medicare can offer coverage for less expense, because they run at 3% administrative costs versus 18% to 30% for the for-profit insurance companies. That's why the Republicans and blue dog Dems worked very hard to kill the public option at the behest of their health insurance corporate masters. Without those 18% to 30% administrative costs in place, the executives running those companies cannot receive hundreds of millions in compensation. Their gravy trains would finally come to an end. If we had the public option or Medicare for all, healthcare costs would drop dramatically. For-profit health insurance dominance in our nation is why our healthcare is so damned expensive. But if you continue to listen to conservative pundits, Donny, you will never learn this truth.
Originally Posted By Donny Single payer does not answer why a cat scan should $2,000 but I agree with you the insurance companies are in collusion with the health providers but I would suggest allowing people to get health insurance across state lines.This would force insurance companies to compete and force them to start holding the health providers accountable for their over priced health care
Originally Posted By fkurucz Donny, keep in mind that Private Insurance and Medicare do not pay the rate on the bill. Only the uninsured pay the "rack rate". Insurance companies have been tightening the screws on healthcare providers and in many cases they only pay a fraction of the rack rate, which they pre-negotiate with providers. The real waste, as skinnerbox mentioned, is with the insurance companies that skim 30% or more off the top of premiums. If that money was spent for healthcare instead we could cover everyone who is uninsured. This is the inevitable end result of our "for profit" healthcare system. We spend twice per capita than anyone else and yet tens of millions of Americans are uninsured or under-insured and thus have no meaningful access to healthcare.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And as fewer people participate in the system, as fewer people pay to receive healthcare, costs overall rise because running hospitals and clinics are fixed costs.<< This is something I have observed first hand with my Doctor's practice, which he shares with a few partners. A few have left the practice and even then the waiting room is a ghost town compared to say 10 years ago, when it was always mobbed. And I can see why. The last time I went there was a couple in front of me at the check in counter. They had worried looks on their faces as they asked the question that people in civilized countries do not have to ask: How much is it going to cost?
Originally Posted By fkurucz The greatest irony of all is that if you are detained indefinitely as an enemy of the state, you might receive healthcare that was unavailable to you otherwise. Is this a great country, or what?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This would force insurance companies to compete<< No it wouldn't. This is yet another fairy tale from The Happy Republican Alternate Universe, and the only way you can possibly believe it is to have no concept of how insurance companies and healthcare providers interact. Hint: If the Gop proposes ANYTHING that they claim will "force" a major corporation to do something, please just assume that it won't. The Gop is opposed to forcing corporations to do things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Moreover, the most likely scenario would be a variation of the situation with the credit card companies, who are all "located" (officially, if not in fact) in Delaware or South Dakota because - ta da! - those states have the most lax laws for credit card companies, who can then stick you with the consequences of those lax laws no matter where you live. Republicans are fond of proposing "selling insurance across state lines" (which sounds good until you look into it a little deeper), because what it would mean is the companies could set up shop (officially) in whatever state sets up the laxest laws for them. Live in a state that at least has a FEW things they won't let insurance companies get away with? Won't help you now!
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^Agreed. There already is "competition" between insurance companies and the rates keep going up. It has been documented in this forum that if insurance is allowed to be sold "across state lines" all that will happen is that it will be sold from states with the crappiest protection for consumers, making it easier for the insurance companies to deny claims and reduce coverage. And of course, premiums will continue to increase.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<There already is "competition" between insurance companies and the rates keep going up.>> Actually, that's not entirely true. Because of the way the industry is structured now, there is very little room for new insurance companies to be created, especially those companies that would take a not-for-profit status like Kaiser but would be founded by healthcare professionals who aren't demanding 7-figure and 8-figure annual salaries and 30% administrative costs. Health insurance companies are fully capable of managing expenses at 10% to 15% cost, while providing better service than the industry giants currently do. And the 'big box' insurance companies fully well know this. Once everyone is required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty (for those who won't qualify for essentially free or dirt cheap health insurance like Commonwealth Care in Massachusetts), there will be opportunities for those insurance customers who are unhappy with their current providers to go with a new company that's cheaper. This will force the existing big box insurance companies to hold steady on their premium pricing if not actually reduce it. For this reason, I believe that the Republicans and blue dogs deliberately demanded a four-year implementation for healthcare reform, in order to give big box insurance several billing cycles to jack up premium levels as high as possible, knowing that they would be forced to either freeze those levels if not lower them once reform measures fully kicked in on Jan 1, 2014. Competition will be created in 2014 in health insurance, just not in the typical sense we've seen so far.
