It's a Federal Leadership Sh-t Show

[stjames1_53]

It has to be a nationwide thing with a responsible non political group in charge. States only would leave too many holes particularly in red states. I think that the only way to solve this problem is federal assistance with premiums. That way the market stays solvent and people can get their money;s worth through real competition. Paying over $1000 a month for a good plan is just stupid. Paying $500 a month for an okay plan is just as stupid. And running up costs because people don't have insurance is stupid beyond all stupid.

How is your plan to be paid? How much is the start up? OR do we defer to operating an opening agency a deficit account? What's the ceiling? You should note that you are going to do business with a government body that cannot balance their own checkbooks or seem to keep their computers secured.
The first thing they start to do is "cut" corners. That'd be me and you. Premiums would go up on those paying for theirs and yours and services will slowly be reduced. Yet they'll show that they are indeed operating under a deficit and ask for even more money. There is no agency under this federal government that is not running on a deficit.
It's been that way for the past 70 years.
So, what's one more deficit spending agency?

[carolina73]

And running up costs because people don't have insurance is stupid beyond all stupid.

This was the biggest lie from both the left and the right.
The uninsured pay for the uninsured. They pay what is basically a list price which is determined based on what percentage are is bad debt.
Basically the numbers generally run close to the list being 250% of what the insured pay. The hospitals only collect about 40% of that they are owed. 2.50 * .4 = 1 or 100% collection. That is not a coincidence.

Example I was given was a hysterectomy:
Medicaid paid about $12000 to the hospital
Major Insurers paid about $17,000 to the hospital
The uninsured paid $45,000 to the hospital.

The only way around that was to prepay for a settlement which would be about $23,000

My source is my wife that was head of the credits and collections dept, of a major hospital and she tracked the numbers for the hospital and the reported numbers nationwide. I got to see these reports and numbers on my kitchen table.

You can say the uninsured that paid, were the victims but not the uninsured as a group. They had no impact on the costs to the insured. The inadequate Medicaid amount had more to do with that and that is what Obama Care increased.

I used to scream at the TV when I heard everyone use the uninsured as their excuse. Because of those that made the settlement the uninsured were the most profitable group and the hospital wrote off the 60% that was not paid as losses solely because of their inflated charge.


It was the lie the MSM sold to make you hate those that self-paid.

[Chris]

I believe that we need some social programs and to not have them would make us a compassionless and therefore doomed society.
However, these programs do not belong and are not efficient at the federal level.

Do we though? What if these increasing social programs and dependence on the government actually have a negative effect? Both taking from some and giving to others disincentivizes everyone to do less and expect more.

[Chris]

It has to be a nationwide thing with a responsible non political group in charge. States only would leave too many holes particularly in red states. I think that the only way to solve this problem is federal assistance with premiums. That way the market stays solvent and people can get their money;s worth through real competition. Paying over $1000 a month for a good plan is just stupid. Paying $500 a month for an okay plan is just as stupid. And running up costs because people don't have insurance is stupid beyond all stupid.

"a responsible non political group in charge"

You mean a monopoly to control spending and costs to all while quality of care plummets.

"When I talk about health policy, I often refer to the iron triangle of health care. The 3 components of the triangle are access, cost, and quality. One of my professors in medical school used this concept to illustrate the inherent trade-offs in health care systems. His point was that at any time, you can improve 1 or perhaps even 2 of these things, but it had to come at the expense of the third." The “Iron Triangle” of Health Care: Access, Cost, and Quality

[Chris]

We talked about that already: it's not law yet and American history is my side.

It's comin, so I suggest you join peter in his bunker.

You are simply wrong. It is law. Not my problem you don't understand the judicial system. The federal government can no longer assist with premiums.

History changes as we learn from past mistakes.

[Chris]

I want a new Mercedes and to have Jet57 pay the premiums/payments.

[Tahuyaman]

No, you acted like an idiot and I called you on it.

No.

[Peter1469]

We talked about that already: it's not law yet and American history is my side.

It's comin, so I suggest you join peter in his bunker.

Just admit it. The Constitution is in your way. You need to tear it up to enact your schemes.

[stjames1_53]

Just admit it. The Constitution is in your way. You need to tear it up to enact your schemes.

"...it's archaic and outdated..............and rather draconian in nature. It is a racist document and needs to be preserved in a dumpster. It was written by bigots, narcissists, and haters." a liberal
Now I gotta soak my hands in boiling water..............

[donttread]

It has to be a nationwide thing with a responsible non political group in charge. States only would leave too many holes particularly in red states. I think that the only way to solve this problem is federal assistance with premiums. That way the market stays solvent and people can get their money;s worth through real competition. Paying over $1000 a month for a good plan is just stupid. Paying $500 a month for an okay plan is just as stupid. And running up costs because people don't have insurance is stupid beyond all stupid.

That's really not Constitutional. So if that's what you believe and you are not alone it seems like you should advocate for an amendment. As for me I sometimes think NO insurance would be best for the market. Maybe catastrophic plans only. The rest out of pocket and therefore we bring price competition back to healthcare, while making us a little more responsible for our own health. This could work if the labor market is truly free the workers will make more money without their companies paying for healthcare. In many ways how much of that extra paycheck they hang on to is up to them.