PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Why are Dems agaisnt out of State health insurance?


petegz28
08-28-2009, 07:47 AM
Was listenig to an interview this morning with the former governor of Utah and when he was asked why the Dems are against out of State insurance he siad he didn' know/


So? If they want to increase competition, why are they agains people being able to go out of State to get insurance?

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 07:51 AM
Was listenig to an interview this morning with the former governor of Utah and when he was asked why the Dems are against out of State insurance he siad he didn' know/


So? If they want to increase competition, why are they agains people being able to go out of State to get insurance?
I'm still unclear about the advantages? How will it help lower costs? Whats the arguments against it?

petegz28
08-28-2009, 07:59 AM
I'm still unclear about the advantages? How will it help lower costs? Whats the arguments against it?

Uh..increased competition????

banyon
08-28-2009, 08:05 AM
I have not heard about this opposition.

What Dems are opposing it?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:06 AM
My only question is why does he think it is just Dems? The republicans were in charge for 7 years and didn't change it either.

But yeah I would be in favor of it.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:07 AM
I have not heard about this opposition.

What Dems are opposing it?

I am not sure. I just heard the question asked, which is why I was hoping someone here could enlighten me on the topic.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:07 AM
My only question is why does he think it is just Dems? The republicans were in charge for 7 years and didn't change it either.

But yeah I would be in favor of it.

Fair question

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:10 AM
Fair question

Check this out. Here is a good reason why they should change it and why rates are so

http://radar.oreilly.com/infographic_20090803.gif

banyon
08-28-2009, 08:11 AM
Check this out. Here is a good reason why they should change it and why rates are so

http://radar.oreilly.com/infographic_20090803.gif

Good graph. I was saying in another thread that health insurance had essentially become a duopoly/oligopoly in all but a few states.

People ridiculed me in that thread for saying I didn't think people had much choice in their health coverage. People said "I chose mine!"

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Good graph. I was saying in another thread that health insurance had essentially become a duopoly/oligopoly in all but a few states.

People ridiculed me in that thread for saying I didn't think people had much choice in their health coverage. People said "I chose mine!"

It seems that alot of people don't understand this very well and why Obama wants a public option. This graph clearly shows why they want to inject competition into the system.

I would be for changing the law as well unless there was some really bad reason not to change it.

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Check this out. Here is a good reason why they should change it and why rates are so

http://radar.oreilly.com/infographic_20090803.gif
Dang thats a good reason for sure. What's the negative? Why does anyone oppose more choices and business competition?

banyon
08-28-2009, 08:19 AM
Dang thats a good reason for sure. What's the negative? Why does anyone oppose more choices and business competition?

I would assume that the insurance lobbyists funnelling money to both parties want to keep their gravy train rolling in.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:20 AM
It seems that alot of people don't understand this very well and why Obama wants a public option. This graph clearly shows why they want to inject competition into the system.

I would be for changing the law as well unless there was some really bad reason not to change it.

Why not just open up the competition instead of a public option? I question the motive of the Fed Gov behind a public option. I know, I know, they say it is what is best for the People, but usually it is just the opposite.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:23 AM
Why not just open up the competition instead of a public option? I question the motive of the Fed Gov behind a public option. I know, I know, they say it is what is best for the People, but usually it is just the opposite.

That is ok by me as well. I don't really know the reason why the law is the way it is.

The one thing though I need to find out more about is the "Exchange" because those will be all private plans and I don't know if those are available nationally or just on the state level.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:27 AM
That is ok by me as well. I don't really know the reason why the law is the way it is.

The one thing though I need to find out more about is the "Exchange" because those will be all private plans and I don't know if those are available nationally or just on the state level.

Well that is a separate issue. I don't want to have to go through the "Exchange" to get my private insurance. I should be able to choose to keep the Fed Gov out of my health insurance if I want. This bill is just about the Fed Gov getting control, there is absolutlely nothing being produced as far as reform goes. Have you seen anything? Have you seen anything that would make insurance actually cheaper?

A

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 08:36 AM
I would assume that the insurance lobbyists funnelling money to both parties want to keep their gravy train rolling in.
Thats the only reason that I can think of.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:41 AM
Well that is a separate issue. I don't want to have to go through the "Exchange" to get my private insurance. I should be able to choose to keep the Fed Gov out of my health insurance if I want. This bill is just about the Fed Gov getting control, there is absolutlely nothing being produced as far as reform goes. Have you seen anything? Have you seen anything that would make insurance actually cheaper?

A

The Exchange is just a marketplace for private plans that have been approved by the government. If you go on the Medicare site they have the same thing. So if it is like that the plans are only state wide IIRC.

As far as your other question goes I don't know off the top of my head and would have to read the bill to answer that but I am not for this bill anyway.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:44 AM
The Exchange is just a marketplace for private plans that have been approved by the government. If you go on the Medicare site they have the same thing. So if it is like that the plans are only state wide IIRC.

As far as your other question goes I don't know off the top of my head and would have to read the bill to answer that but I am not for this bill anyway.

Who runs medicare?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:46 AM
Who runs medicare?

I know who runs Medicare pete. That is why I am for Medicare for all.

RINGLEADER
08-28-2009, 08:56 AM
It seems that alot of people don't understand this very well and why Obama wants a public option. This graph clearly shows why they want to inject competition into the system.

I would be for changing the law as well unless there was some really bad reason not to change it.

The government is terrible at the cost-effective administration of health care now -- what makes you think it would change under Obamacare?

There is nothing in the bill that mandates or requires that the savings that Obama cites as the major contributor to its funding. The CBO analysis says the plan will save $2 billion.

The government option that Obamacare advocates isn't really an option. You eventually get wedged into a system that requires you to go onto the government plan. Why?

Obama says you can keep your existing insurance but does nothing to address the scenarios whereby an employer cancels insurance coverage (since there is a public "option" waiting for everyone that costs less).

You can add purchasing insurance across state lines to the list of other ideas that could be explored to reduce costs in a meaningful way that Obamacare ignores and the Dems don't want to entertain.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 08:57 AM
I know who runs Medicare pete. That is why I am for Medicare for all.

You are? Are you insane? Please tell me I missed the sarcasm.....

RINGLEADER
08-28-2009, 08:58 AM
The Exchange is just a marketplace for private plans that have been approved by the government.

Why do you want to give the government that control? Once you give the government that control you have given up your freedom to make those decisions. The House Bill gives a lot of latitude to HHS to make all sorts of determinations about what is reimbursable and what kinds of coverages must be provided regardless if the user is choosing the government option or private insurance. Even if Obama has the best intentions there will be nothing that prevents a future administration from applying these powers in a very different way.

What I don't understand is why you think the administration of Obamacare will be any better than Medicare (which you want for everyone) that has a $34 trillion unfunded mandate? What happens when those payments can't be made? What happens when that number accelerates because you're adding millions more people to the system? We're not fixing the problem -- we're blowing up the system for largely political reasons.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:04 AM
You are? Are you insane? Please tell me I missed the sarcasm.....

People have said I am insane but with me getting older I am becoming a little saner.

And yes I am for Medicare for all. Most people would be that is why all this seniors at the townhalls are yelling and screaming Don't let the government touch my Medicare. I have to chuckle at that.

BTW Obama's personal doctor doesn't like his plan and guess what he supports? You guessed it Medicare for all.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 09:06 AM
People have said I am insane but with me getting older I am becoming a little saner.

And yes I am for Medicare for all. Most people would be that is why all this seniors at the townhalls are yelling and screaming Don't let the government touch my Medicare. I have to chuckle at that.

BTW Obama's personal doctor doesn't like his plan and guess what he supports? You guessed it Medicare for all.

Oh man, your old age is hitting you between the ears.

You realize that for ever 1 medicare patient a private doctor sees he has to see 3-7 private patients to make up the costs, right?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:06 AM
Why do you want to give the government that control? Once you give the government that control you have given up your freedom to make those decisions. The House Bill gives a lot of latitude to HHS to make all sorts of determinations about what is reimbursable and what kinds of coverages must be provided regardless if the user is choosing the government option or private insurance. Even if Obama has the best intentions there will be nothing that prevents a future administration from applying these powers in a very different way.

What I don't understand is why you think the administration of Obamacare will be any better than Medicare (which you want for everyone) that has a $34 trillion unfunded mandate? What happens when those payments can't be made? What happens when that number accelerates because you're adding millions more people to the system? We're not fixing the problem -- we're blowing up the system for largely political reasons.

Once again for the millionth time I am not for Obama's plan I am for Medicare for all.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:08 AM
Oh man, your old age is hitting you between the ears.

You realize that for ever 1 medicare patient a private doctor sees he has to see 3-7 private patients to make up the costs, right?

It probably is because I can't remember shit anymore.

I fully support reforming Medicare and having an "independent" outside group govern it and set rates. Medicare does need reform it isn't perfect but most people like it.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 09:12 AM
It probably is because I can't remember shit anymore.

I fully support reforming Medicare and having an "independent" outside group govern it and set rates. Medicare does need reform it isn't perfect but most people like it.

Of course they do..cause they get stuff cheaper than what it would normally cost and someone else picks up the difference.

ROYC75
08-28-2009, 09:18 AM
Why?

Lobbyist with Lined pockets.

RaiderH8r
08-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Why?

Lobbyist with Lined pockets.

***cough cough***TomDaschle***cough cough***

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Of course they do..cause they get stuff cheaper than what it would normally cost and someone else picks up the difference.

Maybe. My grandma had a supplemental Medicare insurance through Blue Cross for a little over $250\month. That covered the other 20%. But that is fairly expensive just to cover 20%.

Just think for a minute what it would be like if we had no Medicare for seniors. Instead of passing things down to their kids and grand kids people would have to auction off their entire livelihood after they are dead or maybe before they died to pay for their medical care. And in fact in alot of ways they do this already when they have to go into nursing homes. IIRC they don't have to sell their house but they can only have a very low amount of money left in the bank.

My mom and I were talking about this the other day about my grandma. She had hip surgery and ended up dying in the hospital 3-4 months later because she got a staph infection during surgery. Looking through all the bills the cost was around a quarter of a million dollars. Who could afford that seriously? My grandma sure couldn't. She had to quit working to take care of her sister because she had a stroke and fell down and broke her hip and became paralyzed on one side.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 09:31 AM
Maybe. My grandma had a supplemental Medicare insurance through Blue Cross for a little over $250\month. That covered the other 20%. But that is fairly expensive just to cover 20%.

Just think for a minute what it would be like if we had no Medicare for seniors. Instead of passing things down to their kids and grand kids people would have to auction off their entire livelihood after they are dead or maybe before they died to pay for their medical care. And in fact in alot of ways they do this already when they have to go into nursing homes. IIRC they don't have to sell their house but they can only have a very low amount of money left in the bank.

My mom and I were talking about this the other day about my grandma. She had hip surgery and ended up dying in the hospital 3-4 months later because she got a staph infection during surgery. Looking through all the bills the cost was around a quarter of a million dollars. Who could afford that seriously? My grandma sure couldn't. She had to quit working to take care of her sister because she had a stroke and fell down and broke her hip and became paralyzed on one side.

Ok, but if Medicare isn't covering the actual costs, and you give it to everyone...where does the difference is cost get made up?

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 09:37 AM
Once again for the millionth time I am not for Obama's plan
I've explained it myself a million times. I guess they need someone to rail on?:hmmm:

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:44 AM
Ok, but if Medicare isn't covering the actual costs, and you give it to everyone...where does the difference is cost get made up?

Honestly I don't think you can make up the difference no matter what the plan is. I would advocate raising the FICA tax but that will only do so much and I doubt having 250 million people paying the premium every month would cover it either.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 09:51 AM
Honestly I don't think you can make up the difference no matter what the plan is. I would advocate raising the FICA tax but that will only do so much and I doubt having 250 million people paying the premium every month would cover it either.

Exaclty. So you have to focus on reducing costs. That would mean increased competition (no State boundries), TORT reform, efficiency in operations (electronic records?), Tax treatments and of course, lifestyle change on the part of the American.

The government getting involved only politicizes the process, adds costs and does little to make things better.

InChiefsHell
08-28-2009, 09:56 AM
Exaclty. So you have to focus on reducing costs. That would mean increased competition (no State boundries), TORT reform, efficiency in operations (electronic records?), Tax treatments and of course, lifestyle change on the part of the American.

The government getting involved only politicizes the process, adds costs and does little to make things better.

Genius...rep worthy post.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:57 AM
Exaclty. So you have to focus on reducing costs. That would mean increased competition (no State boundries), TORT reform, efficiency in operations (electronic records?), Tax treatments and of course, lifestyle change on the part of the American.



I would support all of those even if we did Medicare for all or not. Those are all reasonable.

wild1
08-28-2009, 10:00 AM
They are against anything that improves the private system's ability to work, because they want to replace it with collectivism.

petegz28
08-28-2009, 10:07 AM
I would support all of those even if we did Medicare for all or not. Those are all reasonable.

The biggest problem with medicare is their dicating what they will pay and what the doctor must accept. Naturally that is below the cost of the service provided.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 11:34 AM
My only question is why does he think it is just Dems? The republicans were in charge for 7 years and didn't change it either.

But yeah I would be in favor of it.

7 years?

patteeu
08-28-2009, 11:37 AM
Dang thats a good reason for sure. What's the negative? Why does anyone oppose more choices and business competition?

One negative is that if we allow interstate insurance, we have to regulate it at the federal rather than state level, but I doubt that many democrats are complaining about that. I'm not completely sold on the idea, myself.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 11:40 AM
People have said I am insane but with me getting older I am becoming a little saner.

And yes I am for Medicare for all. Most people would be that is why all this seniors at the townhalls are yelling and screaming Don't let the government touch my Medicare. I have to chuckle at that.

BTW Obama's personal doctor doesn't like his plan and guess what he supports? You guessed it Medicare for all.

How many seniors actually said that? One?

patteeu
08-28-2009, 11:46 AM
Maybe. My grandma had a supplemental Medicare insurance through Blue Cross for a little over $250\month. That covered the other 20%. But that is fairly expensive just to cover 20%.

Just think for a minute what it would be like if we had no Medicare for seniors. Instead of passing things down to their kids and grand kids people would have to auction off their entire livelihood after they are dead or maybe before they died to pay for their medical care. And in fact in alot of ways they do this already when they have to go into nursing homes. IIRC they don't have to sell their house but they can only have a very low amount of money left in the bank.

My mom and I were talking about this the other day about my grandma. She had hip surgery and ended up dying in the hospital 3-4 months later because she got a staph infection during surgery. Looking through all the bills the cost was around a quarter of a million dollars. Who could afford that seriously? My grandma sure couldn't. She had to quit working to take care of her sister because she had a stroke and fell down and broke her hip and became paralyzed on one side.

Someone has to pay for that care. Do you think money just materializes out of thin air? You focus exclusively on the benefits of medicare without giving a thought to the costs (e.g. the fact that medicare is unsustainable and is going broke).

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 11:54 AM
7 years?

Fine 6 years - Jan 2001 - Jan 2007

How many seniors actually said that? One?

I was watching McCain's townhall and at least 1-2 said it there but it is being reported they are hearing it alot in other town halls.

Someone has to pay for that care. Do you think money just materializes out of thin air? You focus exclusively on the benefits of medicare without giving a thought to the costs (e.g. the fact that medicare is unsustainable and is going broke).

And if we didn't have Medicare who would pay for it? Are the insurance companies gonna do that? LMAO Hell no they wouldn't. They would have told my grandma tough luck no surgery. And my grandma definitely couldn't have afforded a $250,000 medical bill.

Listen I understand Medicare needs reformed but it is probably one of the best systems the government has come up and there is no denying seniors like it.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 12:10 PM
Fine 6 years - Jan 2001 - Jan 2007



I was watching McCain's townhall and at least 1-2 said it there but it is being reported they are hearing it alot in other town halls.

So "very few" appears to be the correct answer.

And if we didn't have Medicare who would pay for it? Are the insurance companies gonna do that? LMAO Hell no they wouldn't. They would have told my grandma tough luck no surgery. And my grandma definitely couldn't have afforded a $250,000 medical bill.

Listen I understand Medicare needs reformed but it is probably one of the best systems the government has come up and there is no denying seniors like it.

One of the problems we have is that we've made some fantastic advances in medicine by creating some super expensive treatments that we simply can't afford to offer to everyone. The math doesn't add up. Some people will have to go without some of the most expensive treatments and we can either have those decisions made by the marketplace or by someone else. Medicare can't cover everything so when it faces this fact and starts to ration, the government is going to have to create real "death panels" of one sort or another. Personally, I'd rather face the fact that I can't afford a treatment than to have a treatment denied to me but approved for a high value citizen like a Union thug or a party activist. If we let politicians make these decisions, the decisions will inevitably be tainted by politics. Even if we create an independent panel to make the decisions, the decisions will be political, they just won't be impacted by voter pressure.

orange
08-28-2009, 12:20 PM
Exaclty. So you have to focus on reducing costs. That would mean increased competition (no State boundries)

So, back to the original topic...

I don't think anyone is "against" out-of-state insurance. It's just unworkable. Each state has it own laws, in many cases two states have contradictory laws. Just check the "Cash For Clunkers is People taxable!" thread to see how even the simplest thing can be made incomprehensible.

But more than just bureaucracy, there's the simple fact that if you are insured by someone in Oz, you have to go to Oz to deal with them - say if they deny your claim or something.

Don't blame the Federal Government for this. This is Federalism.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 12:32 PM
So "very few" appears to be the correct answer.



One of the problems we have is that we've made some fantastic advances in medicine by creating some super expensive treatments that we simply can't afford to offer to everyone. The math doesn't add up. Some people will have to go without some of the most expensive treatments and we can either have those decisions made by the marketplace or by someone else. Medicare can't cover everything so when it faces this fact and starts to ration, the government is going to have to create real "death panels" of one sort or another. Personally, I'd rather face the fact that I can't afford a treatment than to have a treatment denied to me but approved for a high value citizen like a Union thug or a party activist. If we let politicians make these decisions, the decisions will inevitably be tainted by politics. Even if we create an independent panel to make the decisions, the decisions will be political, they just won't be impacted by voter pressure.

Alot more than few because a very small minority of people go to townhalls. My parents are worried about them messing with Medicare and my dad's insurance since he is retired Postal Worker who worked for them for 32 years.

And I also understand that you can't offer super expensive treatments to everyone with maybe the exception that it is the only one for that disease or problem then you really have no choice IMHO.

But think about this pat insurance companies make those kind of "death panel" decisions every day. I am pretty confidant in saying that if my grandma was solely covered by private insurance she wouldn't have gotten the surgery and would have spent her remaining days in bed disabled when she could have gotten a routine hip surgery.

And this goes back to why I support Medicare for all because for the most part they don't make those kind of decisions because everyone knows upfront what is covered and what is not. They just pay the bill and don't get involved in what the doctor does. That is why it has so little overhead.

googlegoogle
08-28-2009, 12:59 PM
Great discussion at freepub about this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2320582/posts

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1164.cfm


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-perspec0823insuranceaug23,0,2946061.story