Coffeehouse Thread

81 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

USA now has healthcare / health insurance reform

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Minh

    YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    Well, he actually did it. 

     

    Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions.

     

    Not everyone's happy about it though.

     

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Ray7 said:

    Well, he actually did it. 

     

    Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions.

     

    Not everyone's happy about it though.

     

    Generic Forum Image

    They aren't happy about it, but I don't believe they're unhappy for the right reasons.

     

    I'm happy for the Americans that the bill did pass, but mandating people buy insurance without providing a public option does seem a little perverse. I won't say "fascist" but it's certainly in that direction. My hope is that a public option will be introduced in the near future.

     

    I wonder if this'll impact Microsoft's employees, who I understand get a rather nice (compared to most insured 'merkins) health insurance policy.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    W3bbo said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    They aren't happy about it, but I don't believe they're unhappy for the right reasons.

     

    I'm happy for the Americans that the bill did pass, but mandating people buy insurance without providing a public option does seem a little perverse. I won't say "fascist" but it's certainly in that direction. My hope is that a public option will be introduced in the near future.

     

    I wonder if this'll impact Microsoft's employees, who I understand get a rather nice (compared to most insured 'merkins) health insurance policy.

    Yes, I have to agree with you there. It's compulsory, which makes it a tax. But it's a tax that's going directly into the Health insurers' pockets?

     

    Odd.

     

    Now is there some kind of cap on what they can charge?

     

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    I consider myself Libertarian, but if there's one thing in the bill that I agree with, it's mandating coverage. The uninsured using the emergency room instead of a primary care physician is a big reason that medical costs have gotten so high. Hospitals have no choice but to raise prices to cover their losses.

     

    I think the current bill (as far as I understand it) has missed the point of health care reform. We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money. 50 years ago health insurance was only for big things; nowadays we use it to pay for everything from prescriptions to regular checkups. Payouts go up, premiums must go up too. It's just how the world works.

     

    Anyway, I'm going to stay out of this until I get a chance to actually read what was passed.

  • User profile image
    harumscarum

    /highfive

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    spivonious said:

    I consider myself Libertarian, but if there's one thing in the bill that I agree with, it's mandating coverage. The uninsured using the emergency room instead of a primary care physician is a big reason that medical costs have gotten so high. Hospitals have no choice but to raise prices to cover their losses.

     

    I think the current bill (as far as I understand it) has missed the point of health care reform. We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money. 50 years ago health insurance was only for big things; nowadays we use it to pay for everything from prescriptions to regular checkups. Payouts go up, premiums must go up too. It's just how the world works.

     

    Anyway, I'm going to stay out of this until I get a chance to actually read what was passed.

    We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money.

     

    Paradox ...

  • User profile image
    Minh

    tfraser said:
    spivonious said:
    *snip*

    We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money.

     

    Paradox ...

    The problem is the insurance companies don't care about controlling costs for us as long as they're profitable. Businesses have been paying more into health insurance, while employees wages stay generally stagnant.

     

     

  • User profile image
    Minh

    harumscarum said:

    /highfive

    /obama bump

  • User profile image
    Bas

    So what exactly is 'the public option'? I'm trying to figure out how the new US system compares to our healthcare system.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Bas said:

    So what exactly is 'the public option'? I'm trying to figure out how the new US system compares to our healthcare system.

    Hah. The public opinion is why I'm watching this thread very carefully, with the finger hovering over the lock button.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    blowdart said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    Hah. The public opinion is why I'm watching this thread very carefully, with the finger hovering over the lock button.

    He said option, not opinion Smiley

     

    A simplistic description of the public option is a govt. run health insurance provider  that would take people that could not afford private insurance.  it was nixed because the private insurers wouldn't be able to make rediculous profits if they had to compete.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    ScanIAm said:
    blowdart said:
    *snip*

    He said option, not opinion Smiley

     

    A simplistic description of the public option is a govt. run health insurance provider  that would take people that could not afford private insurance.  it was nixed because the private insurers wouldn't be able to make rediculous profits if they had to compete.

    A public option could exist in cooperation with the private insurance firms if it restricted its customer base to people who had previously been declined by everyone else. Viz: a baseline, last-resort insurance provider (as it would handle only high-risk patients its premiums would be higher than for the private companies, even taking profit into account).

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    W3bbo said:
    ScanIAm said:
    *snip*

    A public option could exist in cooperation with the private insurance firms if it restricted its customer base to people who had previously been declined by everyone else. Viz: a baseline, last-resort insurance provider (as it would handle only high-risk patients its premiums would be higher than for the private companies, even taking profit into account).

    That was the idea, initially, but then we got sidetracked by the whole socialized death-panels killing grandma BS that the health insurance lobby was successfully able to remove it.  The reality is that it wouldn't even need to take only the private industry rejects.  The public option was meant to be a bare-bones plan that would act as a safety net.  If people wanted, they could still pay for better plans, but the insurance industry felt that many people would opt for the public option instead of paying rediculous premiums.  So they lobbied congress and got it pulled.

     

    I may be in the minority, here, but making a living providing healthcare is ethical, moral, and right. 

    Making a profit on people making a living providing healthcare is unethical, immoral, and wrong.

    Making shareholder profit on health insurance is just plain farking evil.

     

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    Ray7 said:

    Well, he actually did it. 

     

    Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions.

     

    Not everyone's happy about it though.

     

    Generic Forum Image

    "Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions."

     

    Yea, so expect insurance fees to go up. The whole idea of insurance is to be a risk pool, the less people in the pool who are using services the lower the fee will be. The more people using services, the higher the fee will be. It defeats the point of insurance in the first place to force companies to include everyone.

     

    Its the worst possible way of reforming healthcare.

  • User profile image
    JeremyJ

    brian.shapiro said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    "Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions."

     

    Yea, so expect insurance fees to go up. The whole idea of insurance is to be a risk pool, the less people in the pool who are using services the lower the fee will be. The more people using services, the higher the fee will be. It defeats the point of insurance in the first place to force companies to include everyone.

     

    Its the worst possible way of reforming healthcare.

    It is supposed to balance out.  They can't drop as many people but now everyone has to have insurance so they will be collecting more premiums.  I hope that it will help lower cost but the realist in my know that premiums will probably just go up.  I am still glad it passed.  It is a good start but without a public option it is crippled.  A public option would be a way to prevent the insurance companies from raising rates because people would have a cheaper option if they wanted it.

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    JeremyJ said:
    brian.shapiro said:
    *snip*

    It is supposed to balance out.  They can't drop as many people but now everyone has to have insurance so they will be collecting more premiums.  I hope that it will help lower cost but the realist in my know that premiums will probably just go up.  I am still glad it passed.  It is a good start but without a public option it is crippled.  A public option would be a way to prevent the insurance companies from raising rates because people would have a cheaper option if they wanted it.

    It doesn't balance out, because people require treatments that cost more than their fees. If it did balance out there would be no reason for insurers not to keep everyone on.

     

    The public option, also, would be nothing like NHS or health care systems in Europe or Canada. It would be like Medicare and would be as huge a disaster as Medicare has been.

     

    We either have to do a true single-payer system, or market reforms like Republicans want to do.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    brian.shapiro said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    "Though he had to make concessions, it appears that insurance companies can no longer stop paying for treatment when they feel it's costing them too much money and they're no longer allowed to refuse insurance based on pre-existing conditions."

     

    Yea, so expect insurance fees to go up. The whole idea of insurance is to be a risk pool, the less people in the pool who are using services the lower the fee will be. The more people using services, the higher the fee will be. It defeats the point of insurance in the first place to force companies to include everyone.

     

    Its the worst possible way of reforming healthcare.

    That's funny because the economists on the documentary I watched had it exactly the other way around:  insurance works best when there are more people using it because the risks are spread over a larger group making the 'risk-per-capita' lower; this was the basis for the formation of the UK's National Insurance scheme and was the best possible way to reform healthcare.

     

    There's no point trying to argue for or against these reforms based on economics because both sides have 'evidence' that supports them.

    All you can really argue is your own personal feelings and philosophy because there's no economic 'right' answer.

     

    Herbie

     

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.