For those who believe Universal Healthcare is a good idea, I have a few questions.
1. If Universal Health Care is paid for out of our taxes, what is the assurance that the taxes won't rise to a level where these themselves are unaffordable?
2. Have you ever seen a tax imposed on Americans that decreased over the years?
3. Is there any assurance that certain medical conditions will not be excluded in coverage under Universal Healthcare, either now or in the future?
4.What is the assurance that the government won't just deny life saving treatments, particularly among newborns and the elderly?
5. What if Universal Health Care won't cover abortions and abortions without insurance are unaffordable?
6. If the reason for Universal Health Care is to make health care affordable and accessible to all, then why don't we just regulate the health insurance industry and beef up existing welfare programs for low income persons?
I think it's ironic that no one who seems to like the idea of Universal "healthcare" directly answered my questions.
( edited to simplify)
How do we know when they haven't even proposed any of this yet?
Quoting buttersworth:Thank you for your input, but that doesn't answer any of my questions.
What I am asking is, what is the assurance -what is the safeguard, what makes certain- that these taxes won't increase, that the quality will be intact?
Quoting Pema_Jampa:
I lived overseas and experienced universal healthcare. I paid 40% in taxes and everything I needed was covered. I never had issues getting into the doctor's office and when I had an emergency, the hospital took excellent care of me. No problems for 5 years that I was there.
Ummm, the insurance company. Did you really not know that you can sue your insurance if they fail to pay a claim that they are contractually obligated to pay? Or if they give you the run around and never respond to your claims? You have the right to sue them. Who can I sue if (when) the government does the same?
Quoting PTmomma3:
What's the recourse right now under private health insurance? Who can you sue now?
Quoting godotherightthi:
Can I add another?
#7 - when the beauracracy of the government run insurance unfairly denies coverage, where is the recourse? Who can I sue?
There are parts I like and parts I don't like...
But we NEED something to change...
Quoting godotherightthi:Ummm, the insurance company. Did you really not know that you can sue your insurance if they fail to pay a claim that they are contractually obligated to pay? Or if they give you the run around and never respond to your claims? You have the right to sue them. Who can I sue if (when) the government does the same?
Quoting PTmomma3:
What's the recourse right now under private health insurance? Who can you sue now?
Quoting godotherightthi:
Can I add another?
#7 - when the beauracracy of the government run insurance unfairly denies coverage, where is the recourse? Who can I sue?
No guarantees or assurances can ever be given.
Very educational and thought-provoking.
Quoting buttersworth:Why haven't you answered my questions?
Quoting PTmomma3:
Ok, I'll bite.
1. So you think that since we can't predict the future we shouldn't try something that is currently happening right now? Maybe you weren't aware, but many people now can't afford insurance and for the majority of us who do have it, it's very quickly becoming unaffordable.
Do you know what a "poor house" was back in the 1940s?
2. Tax cuts? How many examples would you like?
The question was: which taxes have decreased? Meaning, which taxes specifically levied against you are you paying less in since the tax was imposed?
Obama Tax Cuts:
"Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." How low? The average family of four right now is paying 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes -- the second lowest percentage in 50 years.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a self-described non-partisan organization, released a report on Tuesday that read: "The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals." This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800.
The health care bill passed by the administration, meanwhile, includes a tax credit that could cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to insure its workers. The Recovery Act, meanwhile, included such tax breaks as a $1,500 credit for home energy improvements, and an $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers.
It has been a buffet of tax breaks and credits offered by this administration (occasionally to the chagrin of progressive economists, who want more focus on stimulative federal spending).
Yet polling numbers indicate that Americans are barely aware of these developments. Indeed, a good chunk of the country believes it has been saddled by this administration with tax hikes. Back in mid-February, a full 24 percent of respondents to a CBS News/New York Times poll said that their taxes had increased under Obama. Fifty-three percent said they had stayed the same. Only 12 percent thought their taxes had gone down."
Bush Tax Cuts:
"The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers."
ClintonTax Cuts: In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful.
Reagan Tax Cuts:
With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code. Ultimately, the combination of base broadening and rate reduction raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue.
3. Such as Pre-existing conditions? No way, surely that would never happen.
And a plane would never fly into a skyscraper in NY, either.
4. I hate to sound like a broken record, but do you ever read the news? Every single day insurance denies treatment for people of all ages.
Thank you for helping to make that point.
5. The supreme court answered this question in 1973. Abortions won't become illegal and insurers will have to keep paying for them. They are legal. It doesn't matter what religious views people have. We all know the results of not allowing women to be able to choose.
I don't agree with abortion. This question was a matter of principal: that being, when something you want is not covered, what will you do?
6. Wouldn't this be accomplished by all 3? Our system is so broken it will absolutely require more regulations on insurers AND health care providers, beefing up the welfare system for the disabled and poor, and making sure all Americans get equal treatment. Currently, the rich and the poor do. Let's get the middle class citizens who bust their asses everyday paying taxes covered under a plan they already pay so much for.
Our system is not broken. It is abused and about to be exploited.
I don't have any answers, I just know our system is broken. I worked in a doctors office and have worked for a large health ins company and some of the things that go on are ridiculous.
What I've read of single payer sounds good but I have no love or trust for the govt. I trust for profit business less. All the scary things I've been told about UHC already exist in private ins, especially HMO's. I don't know, is it better for the govt to make our healthcare decisions or private corps whose main goal is profit?
In the words of Bill Maher, Obamacare was a big blow job to the health ins industry. They are using it as a scapegoat for rising premiums but those have been going up like crazy for many years and the ins companies just blame hospitals or rx costs or whatever they can while they outsource and execs make 7 figures.
Thank God......it's Friday!!!
Absolutely correct. You really should check out your EOB the next time you get one. It shows just what you were charged, what is covered and what you will be expected to pay. Business who provide ins to employees negotiate with insurance companies as to what will be covered and paid for at what cost. The government is the same with medicare.
Quoting DSamuels:
They may "charge" the insurance company that much, but they don't get the full price. Most insurance companies have a deal, PPO, etc, with dr and medical facilities. They take what the insurance company pays and the rest is a write-off. For medicare it can be pennies on the dollar that they get. Going over my dad's medicare statements, some of the charge were $600 and medicare approved $60, paid all but $12 and his supplemental paid the $12. The rest is written off.
I had a cat scan done in Jan. and insurance paid $0, they applied it towards my deductible. The cost insurance was billed for was around $1500, I was charged $514, the rest was written off. It may look like the insurance company is overcharged, but they never pay what is charged, it's discounted.
Quoting jlo1313:
The regulations put in place on the health insurance industry have nothing to do with pricing of insurance policies. The lack of regulation on healthcare industry is truly the problem. The judicial system is also a small part of the problem. But if you really want to nail down what the biggest problem is, its insurance fraud. Insurance fraud in the healthcare industry hit the hardest in the mid 90's. It started with overcharging insurance companies, padding bills and it still goes on and with demands of claim payments being a net 60 at the most, the company's hands are tied, because the paperwork they deal with is massive. Want proof, just call the lab and ask them a cash price on a test you need done and tell them you don't have insurance, then check it against your insurance bill. Its hundreds of dollars. Is that fair?
Quoting DSamuels:
Part of the problem with #6 is that the healthcare/insurance industry is so heavily regulated by the gov't already, that is what caused prices to be so high. They regulate which tests have to be done before treatment, many unnecessary tests. Part of that is also because of malpractice.
Medical care and insurance was very affordable before the gov't decided we needed more "affordable" insurance in the form of HMOs.
When my kids were little (late 70's, early 80's) a dr. appoinment cost us $15. We had $100 deductible per person. Well baby visits didn't even go towards the deductible. You had to go to the dr an awful lot to cover your deductible. Congress decided that wasn't fair so they invented the HMO with $10 co-pays, but they had to follow gov't regulations.
From their beginnings, HMOs were designed–by Democrats and Republicans–to eliminate individual health insurance. The result is a vast network of health care collectives (HMOs, PPOs, Point-of-Service plans) created by government that are destined to do harm to individuals.
The individual was first discouraged from buying insurance in 1942 when employee health premiums were made tax deductible to employers–not to individuals. Congress created Medicare in 1965, making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.
Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance. As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for everyone’s health care and promoted the idea of a health maintenance organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.
President Nixon appeased the left and proposed the HMO Act, which Congress passed in 1973. The law created new, supposedly cheaper health coverage with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.
Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.
The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual. The government had effectively instituted HMOs, at the insistence of the left and the capitulation of conservatives and pragmatic businessmen.
Nixon’s HMO Act was passed 25 years ago. Since then, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed
bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment. The patient may also be refused treatment and die.Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.
Wow, you're rude. I never said or implied it was terribly easy or that anything was hunky dory, I simply asked, where is the recourse if the government is running it? Didn't hear an answer.
Quoting PTmomma3:
You are so terribly ignorant that it is a waste of my time to answer this. If you truly believe that's is easy to just sue the insurance company who denied your claim and then every thing is all hunky dory, then that tells me you have no clue what's going on. Have you ever heard of Wendell Potter? ERISA? Nataline Sarkisyan? Ian Pearl? If you haven't, you should.
Quoting godotherightthi:
Ummm, the insurance company. Did you really not know that you can sue your insurance if they fail to pay a claim that they are contractually obligated to pay? Or if they give you the run around and never respond to your claims? You have the right to sue them. Who can I sue if (when) the government does the same?
Quoting PTmomma3:
What's the recourse right now under private health insurance? Who can you sue now?
Quoting godotherightthi:
Can I add another?
#7 - when the beauracracy of the government run insurance unfairly denies coverage, where is the recourse? Who can I sue?
Quoting Friday:I don't have any answers, I just know our system is broken. I worked in a doctors office and have worked for a large health ins company and some of the things that go on are ridiculous.
What I've read of single payer sounds good but I have no love or trust for the govt. I trust for profit business less. All the scary things I've been told about UHC already exist in private ins, especially HMO's. I don't know, is it better for the govt to make our healthcare decisions or private corps whose main goal is profit?
In the words of Bill Maher, Obamacare was a big blow job to the health ins industry. They are using it as a scapegoat for rising premiums but those have been going up like crazy for many years and the ins companies just blame hospitals or rx costs or whatever they can while they outsource and execs make 7 figures.
How Limbaugh, Thomas, Bean produced conservative warrior Andrew Breitbart
- buttersworth
on Jun. 22, 2012 at 12:11 AM