APP - Emergency Rooms as Healthcare

ib1yysguy said:
Even Damo has come about on this point. You're wrong. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

how do you figure?....from his post
So long as they meet the QHBP requirements, they can offer insurance off-exchange.
Click to expand...

my point is, so long as they have to meet all the requirements, it's still the government designed insurance.....

now do I understand from recent posts that they've pulled the plug on this bill?......if so, this debate has become moot.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how do you figure?....from his post


my point is, so long as they have to meet all the requirements, it's still the government designed insurance.....

now do I understand from recent posts that they've pulled the plug on this bill?......if so, this debate has become moot.....
Click to expand...

Health insurers already have to meet certain requirements dictated by government, being as they're proving insurance for one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. These are new consumer protection regulations that they have to adhere to. And guess what? When this plan passes, whether it passes with a public option or not, these changes are still going to be in effect.

They are MINIMUMS. They have to meet minimums. That's what everyone on this thread but you realizes by now. The government is setting minimum standards slightly higher than where they are presently. That's good for you, because that means you wont' be able to get dropped for stupid reasons and they can't deny you coverage along with a host of other good things.

They haven't pulled the plug on healthcare reform. They're likely to drop the public option and replace it with coops on a state-wide basis, but the altering of the essential benefit requirements is very likely to pass with broad support. Get used to it.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Health insurers already have to meet certain requirements dictated by government, being as they're proving insurance for one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. These are new consumer protection regulations that they have to adhere to. And guess what? When this plan passes, whether it passes with a public option or not, these changes are still going to be in effect.

They are MINIMUMS. They have to meet minimums. That's what everyone on this thread but you realizes by now. The government is setting minimum standards slightly higher than where they are presently. That's good for you, because that means you wont' be able to get dropped for stupid reasons and they can't deny you coverage along with a host of other good things.

They haven't pulled the plug on healthcare reform. They're likely to drop the public option and replace it with coops on a state-wide basis, but the altering of the essential benefit requirements is very likely to pass with broad support. Get used to it.
Click to expand...
What? They are currently regulated more than almost any other industry? And how many more times will I have to read that the "free market" failed? (not saying that you made that argument, just that I've seen it too many times).
 
Damocles said:
What? They are currently regulated more than almost any other industry? And how many more times will I have to read that the "free market" failed? (not saying that you made that argument, just that I've seen it too many times).
Click to expand...

They're regulated, but they're still a monopoly. You cannot presently buy insurance not offered by 1 of only 7 companies in this country. All the health insurance offered is parented by just 7 companies. The free market works with the hand of competition, which you guys are making sure with your misinformation we're not going to change anytime soon. Without adequate competition (like letting insurers operate across state lines - which the coop compromise will insure we continue to prevent), the system fails and you wind up with what we have now.
 
ib1yysguy said:
They're regulated, but they're still a monopoly. You cannot presently buy insurance not offered by 1 of only 7 companies in this country. All the health insurance offered is parented by just 7 companies. The free market works with the hand of competition, which you guys are making sure with your misinformation we're not going to change anytime soon. Without adequate competition (like letting insurers operate across state lines - which the coop compromise will insure we continue to prevent), the system fails and you wind up with what we have now.
Click to expand...
Again, a "monopoly" consisting of seven different companies regulated more than most understand is not "free market" any more than "NAFTA" is a "free trade" agreement.

Anyway, offering across state lines is the FIRST thing every R mentions that I have seen when speaking of this issue. Opening up competition, again something every R mentions when they speak on this issue.
 
Damocles said:
Again, a "monopoly" consisting of seven different companies regulated more than most understand is not "free market" any more than "NAFTA" is a "free trade" agreement.

Anyway, offering across state lines is the FIRST thing every R mentions that I have seen when speaking of this issue. Opening up competition, again something every R mentions when they speak on this issue.
Click to expand...

The problems the Rs don't deal with are the costs imposed by for-profit healthcare, which necessitates all the evil crap we put up with. It doesn't presently operate in a totally free market environment, nor should it. The crap we do let them get away with is bad enough. Total unfettered ability to fuck people over without a government safety/alternative is ludicrous.

Coops are going to offer a little more state-by-state competition, but not enough to change anything. They'll be non-profit, but still be less effective than a national coop would be.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The problems the Rs don't deal with are the costs imposed by for-profit healthcare, which necessitates all the evil crap we put up with. It doesn't presently operate in a totally free market environment, nor should it. The crap we do let them get away with is bad enough. Total unfettered ability to fuck people over without a government safety/alternative is ludicrous.

Coops are going to offer a little more state-by-state competition, but not enough to change anything. They'll be non-profit, but still be less effective than a national coop would be.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for a "free market" here, I am simply mentioning it is disingenuous to keep saying the "free market" failed. (and again, I mentioned that I didn't say that YOU made this argument, I just used your post of "most highly regulated industry ever" to suggest that it wasn't a "free market") It was never tried, and logically so.

Rules always need to be set to do something about when others make victims of individuals.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not arguing for a "free market" here, I am simply mentioning it is disingenuous to keep saying the "free market" failed. (and again, I mentioned that I didn't say that YOU made this argument, I just used your post of "most highly regulated industry ever" to suggest that it wasn't a "free market") It was never tried, and logically so.

Rules always need to be set to do something about when others make victims of individuals.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be disingenuous to say the free market failed healthcare in terms of this modern debate. I don't know of the history of healthcare well enough to say, but my guess is it failed somewhere along the line in a very big way that required all the government regulation we see today.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The government is setting minimum standards slightly higher than where they are presently.
Click to expand...

I have asked this question three times already, nobody is able to answer it....what is left for the free market system to offer over and above your "minimums"......where is the freedom for innovation?....
 
Last edited:
simple question no one has addressed....

if the government is intent upon preserving free enterprise in health care, why are we considering a bill that REQUIRES every insurance company to offer everything the government policy offers....the same deductible, the same copay structure, the same "essential benefits"?.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have asked this question three times already, nobody is able to answer it....what is left for the free market system to offer over and above your "minimums"......where is the freedom for innovation?....
Click to expand...

The "minimums" are just things like what types of care they have to offer (maternity, mental health, etc) and some consumer protections like they can't drop you for dubious reasons. The percentage of reimbursement and deductibles aren't laid out in the bill for plans sold off the exchange. And they can cover whatever they want apart from the specific treatments listed - and there are hundreds I'm sure they could come up with... like preventative care.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
simple question no one has addressed....

if the government is intent upon preserving free enterprise in health care, why are we considering a bill that REQUIRES every insurance company to offer everything the government policy offers....the same deductible, the same copay structure, the same "essential benefits"?.........
Click to expand...

We've been over this. All it requires is the essential benefits. The deductibles and copay structures aren't addressed for plans outside the exchange.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Bull shit. My company switched over to an HSA program two years ago (and HSA's aren't worth shit) because the increasing cost of health insurance was negatively impacting the bottom line. Two months later my wife had a serious bicycling accident where she was knocked unconscience for two hours. The ambulance trip to the ER and subsequent treatment cost $10 K total of which the HSA paid only $3k. I can assure you, that this is not a debt you can just blow off. You are either extremely uninformed or on welfare cause if you think you can just blow that off and not pay that debt then you are in for a rude awakening if you should be so unfortunate to have to take a trip to the ER.
Click to expand...

HSA's are not shit.... you may have a bad policy with an insanely high deductible, but that is not the norm.

My HSA works great. I pay the first chunk of any medical expenses (my deductible is $2500 now) from my HSA account. After that, the insurance picks up the tab. I am looking to bump my deductible up to $5k now that my HSA balance has grown so much in years when I don't use it.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Every health insurance company in the country belongs to one of seven parent companies.
Click to expand...

the BC/BS are not "owned" by a parent company, most are individual non-profits set up in a particular state....this was done so that each company could comply with the laws of a state without it interfering with their ability to comply with another state's laws.....
 
ib1yysguy said:
We've been over this. All it requires is the essential benefits. The deductibles and copay structures aren't addressed for plans outside the exchange.
Click to expand...
they are in subsection (c) of Section 122 Essential Benefits....policies not sold on the exchange must still provide "essential benefits".....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top