I'm in the Middle of Watching Sicko

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
I still have the same opinion that I've had before: Insurance companies get away with way too much and need way more oversight and should have to payout of the nose for each instance someone is unjustifiably denied.

I still don't think we should have a national healthcare system. I think an affordable national insurance plan would be sufficient and there should be national guidelines and levels for insured.
 
I think we should just eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, SHCIP, and VA, and americans should just exercise more and use their money in private health savings accounts to shop for health insurance in the free market.
 
Dano said:
I think we should just eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, SHCIP, and VA, and americans should just exercise more and use their money in private health savings accounts to shop for health insurance in the free market.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea.
 
LadyT said:
I still have the same opinion that I've had before: Insurance companies get away with way too much and need way more oversight and should have to payout of the nose for each instance someone is unjustifiably denied.

I still don't think we should have a national healthcare system. I think an affordable national insurance plan would be sufficient and there should be national guidelines and levels for insured.
Click to expand...
So far I agree.
 
LadyT said:
I still have the same opinion that I've had before: Insurance companies get away with way too much and need way more oversight and should have to payout of the nose for each instance someone is unjustifiably denied.

I still don't think we should have a national healthcare system. I think an affordable national insurance plan would be sufficient and there should be national guidelines and levels for insured.
Click to expand...


I still don't think we should have a national healthcare system. I think an affordable national insurance plan

I'm not sure what distinction your drawing between a "national healthcare system", and a "national insurance plan".

I must assume that you mean by a national healthcare system, you may be refering to the NIH system in the UK. A system that is fully integrated, with hospitals, doctors, and clinics being government employees and healthcare financed by the government.

I haven't heard any mainstream politician in the US call for that. I think the UK is an anomaly in that respect. I think most countries have private hospitals and doctors, which are not employed by the government. I think we all prefer our healthcare providers to remain private. I think virtually all people here are are talking about government not providing healthcare, but government paying for it - paying the healthcare providers directly, instead of some patchwork system of third parties paying the healthcare providers.

The issue here, is the mechanism for paying them, being some sort of hybrid public-financed health insurance plan. Which is what I assume you mean by a "national healthcare plan".
 
Cypress said:
they are so fundamentally different in structure and purpose, I don't think anyone is considering that.
Click to expand...

No she has a good idea. They are not that different, one provides health payments for the poor, one for the elderly.
You could eliminate some overhead by combining the 2. It's not big savings, but it's certainly a positive step.
 
TheDanold said:
No she has a good idea. They are not that different, one provides health payments for the poor, one for the elderly.
You could eliminate some overhead by combining the 2. It's not big savings, but it's certainly a positive step.
Click to expand...
The overhead on those programs is far less than in the market. They seem to have found efficient means to provide something that the market cannot. I find this interesting.
 
Damocles said:
Not really. I still prefer LadyT's suggestions. I think the government who can't decide where fences go really shouldn't ever be making medical decisions for me.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but bear in mind, I support HEAVY regulations on what claims they are allowed to deny. Additionally I would put time restraints on the amount of time they are allowed to let a claim linger unless they have reasonable proof that fraud is involved. I also think that there should be oversight when they are coming up with their premium prices too. Insurance companies have shit loads of reserves yet never seem to pay anything out.

Being the communist that I am I'd also outlaw direct incentives for denying claims.
 
Cypress said:
I still don't think we should have a national healthcare system. I think an affordable national insurance plan

I'm not sure what distinction your drawing between a "national healthcare system", and a "national insurance plan".

I must assume that you mean by a national healthcare system, you may be refering to the NIH system in the UK. A system that is fully integrated, with hospitals, doctors, and clinics being government employees and healthcare financed by the government.

I haven't heard any mainstream politician in the US call for that. I think the UK is an anomaly in that respect. I think most countries have private hospitals and doctors, which are not employed by the government. I think we all prefer our healthcare providers to remain private. I think virtually all people here are are talking about government not providing healthcare, but government paying for it - paying the healthcare providers directly, instead of some patchwork system of third parties paying the healthcare providers.

The issue here, is the mechanism for paying them, being some sort of hybrid public-financed health insurance plan. Which is what I assume you mean by a "national healthcare plan".
Click to expand...

When I said National Health care plan I was referring to health care providers that are paid by the government.

Although, I am starting to rethink my strategy on who I should elect. Maybe we should vote for someone who's going to push for a national health care plan in the hopes that we'd get the hybrid we all want as a compromise.
 
TheDanold said:
No she has a good idea. They are not that different, one provides health payments for the poor, one for the elderly.
You could eliminate some overhead by combining the 2. It's not big savings, but it's certainly a positive step.
Click to expand...

They are very different dano.

Medicare is a self-funded entitlement program. For seniors who paid into it.

Medicaid is essentially a welfare program, of sorts.
 
Cypress said:
They are very different dano.

Medicare is a self-funded entitlement program. For seniors who paid into it.

Medicaid is essentially a welfare program, of sorts.
Click to expand...

LOL, you are thinking in Ponzi terms. If Medicare was funded by seniors who previously paid into it, then who paid for the seniors that immediately started receiving it in the 1960's?
They are both welfare programs, so is SS. Medicaid is a transfer of wealth from young to old.

This whole argument of government programs being paid for by previous taxes is nonsense, it would only make any sense if the entitlement took decades before it started paying out (based on the assumption that it would only be given to those who paid in).
Instead benefits were paid out right away from when the program launched.
 
Exactly...........

Cypress said:
They are very different dano.

Medicare is a self-funded entitlement program. For seniors who paid into it.

Medicaid is essentially a welfare program, of sorts.
Click to expand...


and what most people do not know is that while on Medicare part A pays for Hospitalization only Part B has a separate premium that is payed by the Senior...the average premium is some $90.00 per month...if the senior wants drug coverage they must also pay a premium!


As for Medicaid this is just that 'Welfare' and most of the receipients are Illegal Aleins...as there is a clause giving them preference!
 
Battleborne said:
and what most people do not know is that while on Medicare part A pays for Hospitalization only Part B has a separate premium that is payed by the Senior...the average premium is some $90.00 per month...if the senior wants drug coverage they must also pay a premium!


As for Medicaid this is just that 'Welfare' and most of the receipients are Illegal Aleins...as there is a clause giving them preference!
Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot.
 
FU.....................!

TheDanold said:
LOL, you are thinking in Ponzi terms. If Medicare was funded by seniors who previously paid into it, then who paid for the seniors that immediately started receiving it in the 1960's?
They are both welfare programs, so is SS. Medicaid is a transfer of wealth from young to old.

This whole argument of government programs being paid for by previous taxes is nonsense, it would only make any sense if the entitlement took decades before it started paying out (based on the assumption that it would only be given to those who paid in).
Instead benefits were paid out right away from when the program launched.
Click to expand...


I paid into ssa and medicare and served...I receive my benefits for serving...VA as well as ssa and medicare!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top