patrick.net

Meccos says

The sense of entitlement in this country is like a cancer... it will kill us all.

I love this argument, especially from conservatives.

We have a government by the People.

We forget that the principles of freedom were based on getting rid of the monarchy systems.

According to conservatives we should be allowed to go back to having monarchies in the form of corporate control over such basic rights as education, health care, and energy.

These are basic rights. Then we throw in Social Security, which every one contributes to, and it all gets wrapped up in the flag of entitlements.

I think the vision is that we have this poor working class, and untouchables, while the Kings, and Queens of this once great country reap all the benefits.

That's the way I look at it. I also look at how much we spend to protect those Kings, and Queens, and the endeavors they have around the world.

Military spending, patents, medical research that is given freely to private enterprise, farm subsidies you need a battery of accounts to access, all of these things also add up to entitlements, but they never get pointed to.

Meccos says

The sense of entitlement in this country is like a cancer... it will kill us all.

This statement itself may be true, but healthcare is NOT a form of entitlement. It is rather similar to national defense.

The role of a government is to protect lives and private properties. Healthcare fits into that role.

Every enterprising conservative SHOULD support universal healthcare. Employer-provided plans are just tools for wage-slavey.

Patrick, have you consider going for a group policy?

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/small-business-health-insurance

Individual policies worry me because they are not guarantee issues.

Peter P says

It is rather similar to national defense.

One of the things that is a distant memory was the AIDS crisis of the 1980s which threatened to bankrupt the private Health Insurance.

All of a sudden a group of healthy young men, and women began needing expensive Health Care treatments. The government was forced to step in and provide more care, more research.

As it turned out this was a global health crisis.

We are all still paying for this today, both in higher premiums, and higher medical costs.

Meccos says

Perhaps it is the gov't getting involved that is the problem.

Wrongo! You Meccos are the problem. Yes, you personally, by buying into and propogating that line of complete bullshit that the government is always the problem.

Whose interest does that line of bullshit serve? To find the answer, follow the money.

The only counterweight to corporate power is government power.

Patrick why do you liberals accuse people like me of being the problem for holding onto my beliefs? The prob with liberals are their intolerance to opposing opinions. In reality govt is the problem in many things including healthcare. Please do not put words into my mouth.... I never said the gov't is ALWAYS the prob.

The only counterweight to corporate power is government power.

This I disagree. The best counterweight to both corporate power and government power is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Peter P says

The only counterweight to corporate power is government power.

This I disagree. The best counterweight to both corporate power and government power is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Totally agree.... in fact I would argue that corporate power is often gained through gov't. As you said Patrick follow the money. There is a lot of money from corporate lobbies.

Peter P says

Patrick, have you consider going for a group policy?

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/small-business-health-insurance

Individual policies worry me because they are not guarantee issues.

I'd like to be part of some group policy, but Patrick.net is just me.

What if I belong to some other group? Are there policies for non-employee groups? Maybe if enough Patrick.net forum users were interested, we could all get a discount and be independent of our employers' plans.

Meccos says

Totally agree.... in fact I would argue that corporate power is often gained through gov't. As you said Patrick follow the money. There is a lot of money from corporate lobbies.

Maybe I misunderstood you. OK, we agree that corporate power is often gained through government, or at least the restraint on corporate power is removed via corporate lobbying.

But I hear this same "government is the problem" line of bullshit almost every day.

Peter P says

The best counterweight to both corporate power and government power is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

There is no individual power, ever. Power comes only from being part of a group, corporate, government, or union (though that option is fading).

I'd like to be part of some group policy, but Patrick.net is just me.

I believe a spouse can be included if he/she is involved with the business.

Check if groups like ACM/IEEE provide group policies.

There is individual power. And group identity can be accidental.

For example, do I really belong in the "individualist" group? We act similarly and agree on many issues. So it has influence like a group. But there is really no group.

Free Market is also NOT a group. Yet it is more powerful than any group because it is the aggregation of all individual power.

Done! says

I singed up for Ruthy Care.

We tell my wife we need to see a Doctor and she schedules a Doctor visit.

We get the prescription and CVS want's $75 for medicine, my wife finds it for $35.00.

There are even dirt cheap discount plans she finds that gets us $50 doctor visits.

For my family the Insurance company wanted $1400 a month. We have yet to spend more than $300 in any given month for Health care, paying out of our pocket as we go along.

My wife could have made a better, cheaper, and less convoluted health care plan, than Obama care.

BULLSHIT! You are in denial. Do you even understand the concept of insurance? I have no doubt it would be cheap to get medical treatment as long as you don't need anything besides routine doctor visits and a small amount of medication. The reason you have insurance is so that IF you have a catastrophic illness, there will be money to pay for it, and you won't have to "suck off the teat of the middle class" or however you worded it.

You fuckers think you're so goddam smart - that you could do a better job than Obama, but your plan is basically, "Gee, I'm healthy right now so it shouldn't cost so much, and when I get sick something magic will happen and everything will be o.k."

Patrick, I have Anthem, and my rate went up 21% this year. That's obviously unacceptable, but it's not anywhere close to the 74% you say yours went up. I can't help thinking that there is another factor, like, as someone else pointed out, you just happened to cross an age threshold or something.

michaelsch says

Praising Obama reform is nothing but stupidity. The guy actually had opportunity to reform healthcare, he rather opted to create a reform that only insures profits of owners and top executives of insurance companies. Worst of all his reform kills ANY chance of any meaningful healthcare reform for decades to go. He deserves the worst punishment for this. (If only there was any remotely better candidate to vote for.)

Actually, the republicans were the ones who were against single-payer. But that's o.k., go ahead and have your little fantasy reality.

So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially...

Meccos says

So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially...

Because the ACA failed to include any limits on premium rates.

Meccos says

So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially...

Rates were ALREADY increasing before ACA. If you look at the actual data, not just anecdotal evidence, rate increases are LESS than they were before.

Because the ACA failed to include any limits on premium rates.

That's not true. Profit and overhead can only be a certain percentage of total income. They are legally barred from raising rates beyond that.

errc says

We are the ones to blame, for this silly concept that we can't have medical care, without "insurance"

I don't think everyone has several million dollars set aside in case they need cancer treatment. I know I don't.

Meccos says

So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially...

Because the ACA failed to include any limits on premium rates.

Aca requires more services with the threats of less reimbursement... how could rates go lower?

Homeboy says

Meccos says

So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially...

Rates were ALREADY increasing before ACA. If you look at the actual data, not just anecdotal evidence, rate increases are LESS than they were before.

The data I've seen indicated a higher rate of increase at least in the last year. Nevertheless the point of my comment was that one of the promises of the aca was to make healthcare more affordable... we obviously have not and likely will not see it....

Homeboy says

Because the ACA failed to include any limits on premium rates.

That's not true. Profit and overhead can only be a certain percentage of total income. They are legally barred from raising rates beyond that.

Think about that for a second. Sure insurers can take only 20% of premiums as profit now, but there is still no cap on total premiums.

So now the insurer's motive is to pay out much more for medical care so that their 20% is 20% of a bigger number.

And premiums have obviously continued to skyrocket.

Quit lying Patrick, I've been assured by every Okeydoke Liberal in the world that insurance premiums never went up, that is impossible, because Nancy Pelosi passed Obamacare with out even seeing what was in it. Insurance went up years ago under Regan, we just didn't notice until now.
And how dare you bitch about healthcare, what are you a Republican? You must not want illegal aliens to have the best Gold club member healthcare in the world, while you pay through the nose and receive shit.
Quit being a teabagger.

I just don't understand the utility of health insurance in the first place. I understand that people need health care services. I understand that people are on the other end of that trade, ready to provide health care services. For the life of me, I don't understand the need for health insurance standing in between the two.

It seems to me, that the large, unnecesary cost in this transaction, is the health insurance itself. Not only does it seem that we can do without, but they seem to be the largest inefficiency in the market of health care. I mean, if you operate under the (debatable) assumption that "everyone eventually needs health care" than why the need for a product/service that is billed as an "insurance"?

Insurance-

Risk-transfer mechanism that ensures full or partial financial compensation for the loss or damage caused by event(s) beyond the control of the insured party. Under an insurance contract, a party (the insurer) indemnifies the other party (the insured) against a specified amount of loss, occurring from specified eventualities within a specified period, provided a fee called premium is paid.

So do we ever bother to ask the role and functionality of the health insurance companies in our health care system? Is the price you pay for the risk transfer to this so called insurance, a fair market value? In a so called capitalist society, how are we to view what is "beyond the control of the insured"? And why the hell does using health care services, increase ones likelihood of going bankrupt exponentially?

There's so many questions that need to be answered if "we" are to solve this "health" "care" "problem", but we don't seem to be asking the right ones. Instead its purely political, with both sides looking to seemingly make things worse!

errc says

I just don't understand the utility of health insurance in the first place. I understand that people need health care services. I understand that people are on the other end of that trade, ready to provide health care services. For the life of me, I don't understand the need for health insurance standing in between the two.

Liberal failed logic #105792

"Yeah but if we can make a national health care system based on mandating that every one in America has to feed these greedy bastards pocket while they are free to raise the price at will. Then that's a start..."

errc says

And why the hell does using health care services, increase ones likelihood of going bankrupt exponentially?

Ultimately all of this is due to the fact that no one in America can get elected unless they accept campaign money from the large financial interests that want medical prices to be:

1. ridiculously high
2. secret until billed, when it's too late to make any market-based choices

Fix campaign finance, and you fix everything. But how to fix campaign finance when all of our "representatives" got elected under the current system? They are not going to vote against themselves...

Here's the solution:
Don't buy health insurance. Secretly commit a crime that will land you in jail for about a year. If you get a serious illness turn yourself in to the authorities and while you are in jail they will provide you with health care.
While in prison you will learn valuable skills from other inmates so when you get released you can go into finance or politics or real estate.

Fix campaign finance, and you fix everything. But how to fix campaign finance when all of our "representatives" got elected under the current system? They are not going to vote against themselves...

I agree with you about fixing campaign finance. However Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich are two names I would not associate with "being bought"

The people who are complaining and pontificating about the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. are generally the same people who oppose adoption of a Single Payer healthcare option which, in all of the first world countries that have had it for decades now, has produced significantly better healthcare for a fraction of what healthcare costs in the U.S.

It's very much like the "doctor shortage" which is really a shortage of Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners.

If everyone stopped buying health insurance medical costs would drop significantly. Getting your body "fixed" in a hospital should cost the same as getting your car fixed.
Oh, and stop putting cancer causing shit into your body. Most people take better care of their cars than their own bodies.

tovarichpeter says

has produced significantly better healthcare for a fraction of what healthcare costs in the U.S.

The problem with this statement is that it is actually quite difficult to determine who has better healthcare. Just looking at some numbers can not give qualitative measurements on healthcare because there are so many other factors which are not considered in these stats. For example, obesity and diabetes in the USA is much higher than some other nations. This will greatly skew numbers in a particular direction but does not reflect on the quality of healthcare in the USA.

tovarichpeter says

It's very much like the "doctor shortage" which is really a shortage of Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners.

Unfortunately the use of PAs and NPs is a problem in my opinion. The argument is that they can practice in the same scope as a physician. Being in the medical field, I can tell you that they do not and they can not. PAs and NPs are simply used because they are cheap replacement for physicians. But as we all know, you get what you pay for. When me or any of my family ever needs to go to a hospital or a medical office, I always demand to have a physician. This is because I want the best... not because I am biased.

Meccos says

The data I've seen indicated a higher rate of increase at least in the last year.

Post it. I have seen no such data. And it better be from a reliable source, not some crackpot right-wing rag.

David Losh says

All any one has asked for is access to the same Health Insurance Congress people enjoy.

Simply not true. Congress, government employees and anyone who qualifies for VA benefits are accessing a 'socialist' healthcare system. Which btw is awesome.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have rejected such healthcare for themselves, all the while complaining about their crummy healthcare and increasing health care premiums.

American's have not asked for such healthcare, they have rejected it

Meccos says

Nevertheless the point of my comment was that one of the promises of the aca was to make healthcare more affordable... we obviously have not and likely will not see it....

Perhaps that will be the case, but you are making a premature judgment. The main provisions of ACA are not in effect yet. Whether you agree or not, those who wrote the law believed that mandatory coverage was crucial to making it work. I think it was strange to phase in other parts of the law before the mandate is enacted, but that's how they chose to do it. So until the provisions of the law actually take effect, how can you declare it a failure? All you're doing now is indicting the FORMER system.

Think about that for a second. Sure insurers can take only 20% of premiums as profit now, but there is still no cap on total premiums.

But how could you put an absolute dollar-amount cap on premiums? If expenses rose beyond what you allow the company to charge, you would be forcing them to operate at a loss.

2011: $1344 per month
2012: $2325 per month

See that is the scary thing with Obamacare. if your company gives you 25k or some such health insurance, then you pay a 40% tax on that. Sigh...

Homeboy says

Meccos says

Nevertheless the point of my comment was that one of the promises of the aca was to make healthcare more affordable... we obviously have not and likely will not see it....

Perhaps that will be the case, but you are making a premature judgment. The main provisions of ACA are not in effect yet.

You are right I am making a premature judgement. You are also right in that the main provision of the ACA are not in effect yet. We have yet to see the effects of this. However the ACA is requiring more services with less reimbursement. Do the math. More cost, less reimbursement. Someone has to pay.

Homeboy says

Whether you agree or not, those who wrote the law believed that mandatory coverage was crucial to making it work.

Yeah it being mandatory is crucial because they will need people to subsidize a part of this somehow.

Homeboy says

So until the provisions of the law actually take effect, how can you declare it a failure?

When did I declare this a failure?

In the end it appears that the costs associated with the ACA provisions are going to be passed down to the insurance holders, as experienced by many people on this forum including Patrick. As I stated before, we have not seen improving affordability, nor do I think we will see it (based on these provision). In fact I would argue that it will likely worsen. If you think that is a failure, so be it.

Buster says

American's have not asked for such healthcare, they have rejected it

At the beginning of the ObamaCare debate the question was raised why people of Congress get top of the line Health Insurance for a premium of $7K per year. That is about $600 per month, for the best.

That all gets lost when people start comparing a Blue Cross Health Insurance plan to the government managed health care Congress gets.

Blue Cross does nothing. Blue Cross is an accounting system that some people can afford, but not every one. Instead we have hundreds, maybe thousands of premium collection accounts all competing for the same dollars.

If all the dollars paid for premiums went into one pool that would be a monopoly. However if the government manages that pool of dollars it's called socialism.

Read the book by the owner of Telephonica where he explains that a monopoly is the most cost effective, and most profitable, system of ownership. You just can't leave it in private hands without sever over sight.

Look at Bill Gates. His monopoly is worth Billions, along with all the millionaires that company has made.

So you call it socialism, and I call it profitable. Those profits, by single payer, government managed health care, could be used for higher quality care.

Meccos says

When did I declare this a failure?

In the end it appears that the costs associated with the ACA provisions are going to be passed down to the insurance holders, as experienced by many people on this forum including Patrick. As I stated before, we have not seen improving affordability, nor do I think we will see it (based on these provision). In fact I would argue that it will likely worsen. If you think that is a failure, so be it.

I don't know if you're playing some semantics game with me or what. Obviously, a measure that was passed to control costs and did not do so would be a failure. I'm not sure what your point is as far as re-defining what "failure" means, nor do I think it's germane to this discussion.

I do think your argument is specious on 2 levels:

1. As I wrote, you can't honestly say that rising health premiums are a result of the law until the law has actually taken effect.

2. While premiums continue to rise, there has been improvement in the rate at which they do so. Although technically, what you say is true, you seem to imply that ACA has made the problem worse, when in fact the situation has improved. And I see no reason it will not improve even more as soon as everyone is contributing premium payments into the system in 2014.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/11/the-average-employer-health-plan-now-costs-15980-and-thats-kind-of-good-news/
Health insurance premiums rose by 4 percent between 2011 and 2012. That’s not nothing, but it’s a whole lot less than the double-digit premium increases that were common about a decade ago. In fact, since 2004, the Kaiser Family Foundation has not seen any double-digit increases at all. Just like national health expenditures, employer-based premiums are seeing a cost-growth slowdown.

Meccos says

Yeah it being mandatory is crucial because they will need people to subsidize a part of this somehow.

I agree. You can't have an insurance system where people just sign up AFTER they get sick. Why this point seems to be completely lost on so many people is beyond me.

I have thought about starting my own insurance plan. Take 2000 members each paying 5000 person for a 5 year period. This insurance applies to extreme incidents and not regual visits. Your coverage maxes out at 250,000.