Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


the new health care?

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2009, 04:51 PM   #136
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,112
Re: the new health care?

JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-14-2009, 05:15 PM   #137
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,256
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)
In an attempt to do so, I am still waiting for dmek's response to this exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Well, what is the right plan? Before we going tearing up an imperfect system that provides coverage for 80% of the population, shouldn't we have an idea of what's coming? You want me to suffer through setbacks? I am perfectly fine with sacrifice if you can point me to something that will ultimately lead to a better system.

This self-righteous "you're just afraid of change" bs is just that. Fiscal conservatives are perfectly willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. Their just isn't a plan out there that can w/stand any sort of scrutiny and fit that description.

You, like me, don't have a plan. Unlike you, however, I recognize that "change" for change's sake could lead to something even worse than the current system.
So I will ask again: What's your plan dmek ?
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 05:48 PM   #138
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.
And what are those?
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 10:10 PM   #139
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,301
Re: the new health care?

Okay, people have been asking "what exactly should we do?" regarding a new health care plan. Here are some ideas, again from Rep. Ron Paul, who is a doctor and knows first-hand of the trouble with the current system.

I'm not sure if these bills are still active, but the idea of allowing individuals and families to deduct the cost of health care off their income taxes has been an idea floating around for awhile. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Quote:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
The bottom line is that health care costs seemed to get really out of control once the people stopped paying for the cost of a doctor visit up front, directly. Then the federal government started requiring employers to provide health care, and suddenly all the money was put into a huge pot with lots of people paying in and third parties began allocating those funds as they saw fit -- with doctors basically out of the decision making.

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 11:44 PM   #140
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

Joe, i long or the day that any American that is sick, or needs medical attention, can visit the doctor, and be helped. not worrying about co pays, referrals, or if the have enough money to meet their deductibles. it shouldn't matter if your rich, or poor. i know im living a pipe dream. but i see dozens at work every day, that are of retirement age, that are afraid to go, because they are worried about paying for their health care. in my book, its just not fair. to answer you, i don't know the answer. and sorry it took so long to reply. im working 3-11 this week
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 11:47 PM   #141
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post


Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).
i would be willing to give this a try. there is no way any insurance company should have the right to tell someone what they can, and cannot do
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2009, 12:14 AM   #142
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 12,514
Re: the new health care?

Anything that saves us from the corruption of insurance companies I'm willing to listen to.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 05:38 PM   #143
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
I have fully explained why I believe the quality of my health care will diminish in the "New Health Care Thread". http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...th-care-7.html (the new health care?)

Does your 85% include those who choose to be uninsured even if financially able but unwilling to pay (and, as "financially able" as those who are able because they chose to pay for insurance as opposed to the mortgage - I am referring to the significant portion of young healthy, productive adults who choose not to purchase health insurance)? Does it include only those currently not on medicaid? Must it increase benefits for those on medicaid or will it simply be enough to expand the benefits provided medicaid to cover those not currently covered?

I mean we can go around on this all day, there have been at least three threads and pages and pages of posts discussing all these issues and more without any general consensus being reached. It's a knotty problem and one that shouldn't be rammed through in a 1000 page bill on one month review.

I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 06:08 PM   #144
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 9,716
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryfuhl View Post
Anything that saves us from the corruption of insurance companies I'm willing to listen to.
Welcome to those that perfected corruption........the Fed.
I am not sure, but it might be interesting to consult the American Indian for their opinion on the ability of the Federal Government to implement and administrate an effective health care program?
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs
Hog1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 02:15 PM   #145
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
You really think that goverment run health care plan will just give doctors unlimited access to try and medical procedure they want to try? There is a reason that ins co. have restrictions on procedures and one of them is to reduce cost and if anything it might even be worse under a federal program.
agreed. but what gives them the medical "expertise" to make those calls? pricing? the person making those decisions is about medically qualified as i am
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 02:20 PM   #146
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,256
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?.

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.
I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC.]

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Further, when determining if creating a UHC system will "promote the general welfare", I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: If we are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 07-22-2009 at 02:29 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 03:49 PM   #147
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,111
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
Thats not true. Health Ins. Co. have on staff doctors that review whats been done and what the doctor is requesting. In most cases like my daughter if the her doctor can show why the plan B (the more expensive plan) is the best route to take then in most cases the ins. co. will allow them to skip plan A because in the long run it will save them money. If the doctor is lazy and just writes up a two sentence request then most of the time the Ins. co. will say no start with plan A.

I'm sure Sneed can give more details on this works. One thing to remember alot of people throw in to the mix expermental treatments which is tough to get the ins. co. to approve.
Well, I just have to throw in a personal anecdote at this point:

My son was born May 8th, 1997. We had a very good BCBS employer sponsored Health Care, a caring employer, solid doctors etc. My son came 4 weeks early - unexpectedly, and had a perfect apgar for the first test, but quickly went into respiratory distress. We nearly lost him that night and several times over the next 3 weeks while he was in the NICU, the neo-natal specialist was called in made several visits and over time the medicines and treatments, and basically nature all kicked in. My son is in very good health at the age of 12, and has not even a clue of this, except what we tell him. Great story. Love US medical care.

A year later we were still disputing with Blue Cross about the neonatal fees, as they said that he was to be paid according to the fees for west of the Rockies (we lived in Colorado Springs, which is east of the Rockies, and close to Denver like Baltimore is close to Washington). The Doctor, who was the only specialist available for the period when my son needed his services charged the fees based out of his Denver practice. In the end the insurance commission sided with BCBS (my wife fought them tooth and nail) and we were stuck with major (to us at the time massive) bills. Thankfully, my company(not the govt) helped us, and we paid the fees, and in the end the system worked. The whole total was near 100,000 dollars I think, and we-with my companies help paid maybe 4-6 thousand, I don't remember the exact numbers.

That's my anecdote. I probably pull almost all of my healthcare beliefs from the interactions from those days.
No government UHC was going to help that situation, the good will and charity of my employer, the doctor's abilities, and even the insurance companies overall management all made my son's life possible. And I believe with all my heart that in Canada, Germany (this one I know, as I was told by native Germans), and other UHC countries, my son would have died that night, or up to 3 weeks later when he wasn't given the medicines he needed for the extended time. Every one draws their beliefs from something or some events, this happens to be mine.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 04:08 PM   #148
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Well, I just have to throw in a personal anecdote at this point:

My son was born May 8th, 1997. We had a very good BCBS employer sponsored Health Care, a caring employer, solid doctors etc. My son came 4 weeks early - unexpectedly, and had a perfect apgar for the first test, but quickly went into respiratory distress. We nearly lost him that night and several times over the next 3 weeks while he was in the NICU, the neo-natal specialist was called in made several visits and over time the medicines and treatments, and basically nature all kicked in. My son is in very good health at the age of 12, and has not even a clue of this, except what we tell him. Great story. Love US medical care.

A year later we were still disputing with Blue Cross about the neonatal fees, as they said that he was to be paid according to the fees for west of the Rockies (we lived in Colorado Springs, which is east of the Rockies, and close to Denver like Baltimore is close to Washington). The Doctor, who was the only specialist available for the period when my son needed his services charged the fees based out of his Denver practice. In the end the insurance commission sided with BCBS (my wife fought them tooth and nail) and we were stuck with major (to us at the time massive) bills. Thankfully, my company(not the govt) helped us, and we paid the fees, and in the end the system worked. The whole total was near 100,000 dollars I think, and we-with my companies help paid maybe 4-6 thousand, I don't remember the exact numbers.

That's my anecdote. I probably pull almost all of my healthcare beliefs from the interactions from those days.
No government UHC was going to help that situation, the good will and charity of my employer, the doctor's abilities, and even the insurance companies overall management all made my son's life possible. And I believe with all my heart that in Canada, Germany (this one I know, as I was told by native Germans), and other UHC countries, my son would have died that night, or up to 3 weeks later when he wasn't given the medicines he needed for the extended time. Every one draws their beliefs from something or some events, this happens to be mine.
god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 04:20 PM   #149
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,111
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't
Actually, my employer today would also, I am sure of this. But I also don't work for a true corporate structure, moreso a small business. And, I am not quite sure what that point is, do I think there are other charities, churches, or family that would strive to help me, yes. Do I think I could ever ask a government employee to look at a situation and use charitable discretion, no.
I think if you go to a NICU, you will see so much charity and compassion at work, you will be blown away. I think of the St. Jude's foundation. I can name lots of charitable organizations striving to make a difference, the Red Cross, with their blood drive. After 9-11, the Red Cross was in Colo Springs looking to help those affected. Would I have considered asking the IRS for a little compassion or charitable moment, hell no, and they shouldn't because the government has a purpose. It is not to be in the hospital room with a grieving father, it is to protect the shores, etc. ah well, that would lead to another rant. I'm done.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 04:21 PM   #150
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,111
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't
I would also tell you to keep looking for employers who care and value their employees. I know not every one does, but I, thank God, have never worked for one like that. (maybe the military, but even the good NCO's/Officers demonstrate compassion)
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.41679 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25