Health Insurance Discussion

[TooMuchCredit]

Without tort reform of the nature that President Obama said he wouldn't support on the news yesterday we can't really have Health Care Reform that we can afford. To say your for tort reform but then say your against court awarded limits is not tort reform in my opinion.

I think it's 31 states have cap on malpractice awards. Texas implemented a cap of 250,000. It was supposed to lead to lower premiums. It hasn't. While doctors did not have to pay out more in insurance and lawsuits, it didn't reduce what they charged patients. And premiums still rose.

Massachussetts requires everyone to have insurance, like what is proposed, without requiring preexisting conditions to be covered or removing coverage caps and reducing/eliminating out of pocket expenses. Premiums went up not down.

I'm fine giving the proposal without a public option say 4 years, but if it doesn't deliver any significant savings, which I am doubting it will, the public option kicks in.

[JRScott]

JRScott, I noticed that you didn't include a response to my question, "Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less."

There's no way your proposed "solutions" will work without this.

How do you propose to tell whether a person receiving tax-supported services is able to provide community services or not? How often are you going to do the screenings? Who is going to do them? Most importantly, who is going to pay for them?

Please explain to me how your solutions can be implemented without adding a huge private or government bureaucracy to individually touch each receipient to do so.

We've discovered a number of times in this country that it's not possible to successfully legislate how people can feel and think (a good example - prohibition). A better sense of moral responsibility won't be the result of your ideas - that is done by parents and extended families and friends. However, it does open up yet another enormous potential area for fraud by those who could work but will instead try to "prove" they can't work but still qualify for benefits. What a expensive and wasteful boondoggle this would turn out to be. Worse, it still won't resolve the original issue that is the topic of this thread - healthcare reform.

(And for those who may be wondering what a 'boondoggle' is, it means "do useless, wasteful, or trivial work." From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I did answer your question, basically what's already used to determine eligibility for these programs is sufficient to know what you can do. It would not require much more oversight other than a few more magistrates per district to assign out and check up on community service work.

In truth I don't believe we should be doing any of it, it's what's bankrupting the country in morals, ethics, and in money. Primarily almost everyone of these programs are unconstitutional as the constitution was written by the Founding Fathers. We through them have weakened communities, weakened families and caused great harm to our social environment.

But if we are going to do it, we need to stop the free rides. We need to move towards greater personal responsibility. There is nothing wrong with requiring 8 hours, 16 hours or so of community service a week in exchange for assistance rendered, plus any work assigned here lowers the cost of having to hire others to do it. You ever read the poem Invictus? Some truth in that, we are the masters of our souls, we are the masters of our destinies. It is through the choices we make that we determine our future. However the government is wanting to take that away from you, me and everyone. Every mandate, every additional program removes some of your freedom. That's why I don't think National Health Care is a good idea. Without tort reform of the nature that President Obama said he wouldn't support on the news yesterday we can't really have Health Care Reform that we can afford. To say your for tort reform but then say your against court awarded limits is not tort reform in my opinion. It isn't about helping you or me or anyone, it's about them wanting more control over your life. Once they control your health care, they can then tell you what you can and can't eat. That will then further reduce our food supplies, leading to more hunger and higher food prices. This isn't about helping people, it is about wanting to control your life.

Think about it. Your local charity does far more good in your area than the government does, with less money and less personnel with corruption and waste levels well below half of the government's rate. Yet the government continues to run overly large bureaucracies not for the greater good but to have greater control. If the poor and the elderly ever awake to what the government has done to them these past 20 years, there will be a revolution such that we've not seen in centuries I fear.

[ready2puke]

I am sooooo screwed.. My Pacific Care HMO just went up again. I am self employed and was paying $718. a month.. Now it went up 15% .. Holey Cow..now I'm paying $830 a month. I can't even afford my rent how in the world am I going to pay this? I'm sick to my stomach and this health care system is killing me...not sure what to do .. I'll be 60 in November and I'm sure I'll be in another age bracket and it'll go up again. I wish I was 65 so I can get Medicare.. Whats a person to do that can't afford the premiums go to a clinic.??? Drop the insureance..if I do that I will not be able to get any coverage. I have dics problems and a tube in my ear...what a mess....get me outta here..
R2P

[lrprn]

JRScott, I noticed that you didn't include a response to my question, "Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less."

There's no way your proposed "solutions" will work without this.

How do you propose to tell whether a person receiving tax-supported services is able to provide community services or not? How often are you going to do the screenings? Who is going to do them? Most importantly, who is going to pay for them?

Please explain to me how your solutions can be implemented without adding a huge private or government bureaucracy to individually touch each receipient to do so.

We've discovered a number of times in this country that it's not possible to successfully legislate how people can feel and think (a good example - prohibition). A better sense of moral responsibility won't be the result of your ideas - that is done by parents and extended families and friends. However, it does open up yet another enormous potential area for fraud by those who could work but will instead try to "prove" they can't work but still qualify for benefits. What a expensive and wasteful boondoggle this would turn out to be. Worse, it still won't resolve the original issue that is the topic of this thread - healthcare reform.

(And for those who may be wondering what a 'boondoggle' is, it means "do useless, wasteful, or trivial work." From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

[justbroke]

If you break that, a woman has to have her tubes tied and a man has to have a vasectomy.

My mom worked for 30 years as a Social Caseworker. I'm proud that she retired and had her MSW and was recognized by many Judges for her work on her cases, despite being overloaded, underpaid, and unappreciated.

They did have some requirements, although they couldn't outright have them "neutered". Some included that if they had additional children, that the State would not increase their benefits. Long ago, many learned that the more children you had, the more money you got. It took probably 10 years for some reform to come through where the programs my mom oversaw were able to cutoff certain people who they could prove were abusing the system.

I don't know where or how you could draw the line. How far does it go? If we continue the logic of neutering people, we may as well have death panels. Just my opinion, as someone in tune with the actual realities of the social programs.

[TooMuchCredit]

I do agree somewhat with some of what you saying in that people on public assistance keep popping out babies because that keeps the welfare check rolling in. Yet they don't know who the father is etc.

It might be harsh, but I almost think the only way to stop that is to have as a requirement to receiving any public assistance (with exceptions for those that truely are disabled and unable to work) you must sign something promising not to have any children while on public support. If you break that, a woman has to have her tubes tied and a man has to have a vasectomy. All of which are reversible so when you are back on your feet you can have kids - but you must also pay to have it reversed since you broke the promise in the first place. Now it will cost public $ to fund the initial operations, but it might stop the vicious cycle and cost less in the long run. If you are on public assistance and are able bodied, it is not the time to start or enlarge your family since you are unable to support even yourself.

[JRScott]

There's huge fraud in non-taxpayer supported services as well. For example, privately-held auto and health insurance fraud is also rampant. Should we force everyone who buys insurance to provide some designated service as well because some abuse it?

On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less.

It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not.

Let me know once you figure out a way to stop human beings from being untruthful and self-serving. It's the ONLY way fraud and abuse in ALL private and government services will stop.

what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? Same thing they do when they go out to eat and don't take the kids or go shopping, they can leave them with the other spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, parents, grandparents, or hire a sitter.

How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? If they truly are not capable of doing anything allow a waiver, but even the disabled can do many things even if its just helping file papers or go get lunch for folks at the courthouse. Plus it gives them a sense of accomplishment.


How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Assuming they are only working 40 hours a week a small community service assignment isn't going to hurt them. If they work say more than that then cut down the community service time at least they are working. Doesn't have to be a large commitment could be just 8 hours a week or something.

Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? Supposidly they are being screened to get their services and that should include enough information on what service jobs they could do without drastically increasing paperwork. It would increase the load on the Magistrate or whoever assigns community service such that additional ones might be needed.

It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not. While perhaps not a majority there is a large number of cases where folks actually could work. I think the system is largely broke especially where children are concerned, there are sadly a large number that see they can get a free ride and have children knowing that the government will basically keep them up and they will have to do nothing. That's not good policy and not good for the kids either.


All the current system does with its no pain approach is teach folks to raise up more generations dependent upon the same government aid and little to any personal responsibility to improve oneself. I see it a lot around here in rural America. There are generations of families that get into welfare and intentionally construe their lives to stay on it for free hand outs and that needs to stop.

[justbroke]

On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this?

I'm actually for giveback to the community uynder these programs. I suggest a waiver for people who cannot giveback, due to childcare issues and/or mobility issues.

My problem... I actually know a 31 year old person with absolutely no disabilities, on unemployment and food stamps. This person also has no children, never married, has a working vehicle, etc, etc.

My point on CETA was that it was an actual employment program, and that it does in fact provide jobs.

[lrprn]

I believe anyone receiving any tax dollar funded assistance should be required to work a certain amount of community service each week. I don't care if its HUD, WIC, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc. We should not be giving them a free ride.

There's huge fraud in non-taxpayer supported services as well. For example, privately-held auto and health insurance fraud is also rampant. Should we force everyone who buys insurance to provide some designated service as well because some abuse it?

On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less.

It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not.

Let me know once you figure out a way to stop human beings from being untruthful and self-serving. It's the ONLY way fraud and abuse in ALL private and government services will stop.

[JRScott]

In theory, that's true. But here's the problem:

First, not every unemployed is entitled to a welfare-check every month. Before you can collect from the "cookie-jar", you usually are required to have made regular contributions/deductions from your paycheck when you were still employed. If that's the case, these people are entitled to a certain monthly amount. Now how do you wan't to force them to work for less than welfare? And trust me, THAT'S the payscale where you find many of the jobs performed by illegal aliens. These families only send the head of the household across the border to work. He keeps his own expenses low and transfers the rest of the money across the border. The ironic part is that - even if he would be allowed to bring his family to the US - he couldn't afford the living expenses for them in this country from the money he's earning. And if Jose from Mexico can't manage that, you can be sure that Jack from CA couldn't, either.

Second, if you would be forcing unemployed people to perform these jobs, the work STILL has to provide them with a SUFFICIENT income. Ultimately, that would lead to a huge cost-increase to specific services and goods which would have to be passed on to us, the consumers - UNLESS the government jumps in to fill these gaps. But if the government gets involved - "socialism".

American labor is good labor - but it certainly isn't the cheapest. So again, replacing illegals will be expensive.

If the jobs in CA would provide a worker with a wage you could actually survive on - IN CALIFORNIA - I'm convinced they wouldn't be vacant for too long. But are $6 or more for a bag of lettuce really competative? I guess that's why the jobs are still open...

If you remove the illegal immigrants and remove folks from the welfare lists, then folks will gravitate to jobs that will support them. If a job pays subpar then they will find no employees and will go out of business....that's the free market.

[JRScott]

I think maybe we have something. Why not have the people actually on unemployment insurance, actually do 10-20 hours during the weeks when they actually receive unemployment. Have them work on community projects. Almost like the CETA program from the 1980s. (CETA - Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)

I believe anyone receiving any tax dollar funded assistance should be required to work a certain amount of community service each week. I don't care if its HUD, WIC, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc. We should not be giving them a free ride.

[justbroke]

I think maybe we have something. Why not have the people actually on unemployment insurance, actually do 10-20 hours during the weeks when they actually receive unemployment. Have them work on community projects. Almost like the CETA program from the 1980s. (CETA - Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)

[IBroke]

The country doesn't have to depend on them. If we didn't pay people to sit on their butts and do nothing then we wouldn't need them. Instead we've created a welfare state where we literally pay some of our citizens just to sit on their butts and do nothing.

In theory, that's true. But here's the problem:

First, not every unemployed is entitled to a welfare-check every month. Before you can collect from the "cookie-jar", you usually are required to have made regular contributions/deductions from your paycheck when you were still employed. If that's the case, these people are entitled to a certain monthly amount. Now how do you wan't to force them to work for less than welfare? And trust me, THAT'S the payscale where you find many of the jobs performed by illegal aliens. These families only send the head of the household across the border to work. He keeps his own expenses low and transfers the rest of the money across the border. The ironic part is that - even if he would be allowed to bring his family to the US - he couldn't afford the living expenses for them in this country from the money he's earning. And if Jose from Mexico can't manage that, you can be sure that Jack from CA couldn't, either.

Second, if you would be forcing unemployed people to perform these jobs, the work STILL has to provide them with a SUFFICIENT income. Ultimately, that would lead to a huge cost-increase to specific services and goods which would have to be passed on to us, the consumers - UNLESS the government jumps in to fill these gaps. But if the government gets involved - "socialism".

American labor is good labor - but it certainly isn't the cheapest. So again, replacing illegals will be expensive.

If the jobs in CA would provide a worker with a wage you could actually survive on - IN CALIFORNIA - I'm convinced they wouldn't be vacant for too long. But are $6 or more for a bag of lettuce really competative? I guess that's why the jobs are still open...

[JRScott]

This country depends on them. So "let's get them all out by yersterday" simply doesn't work. Sad but if we take advantage of them by paying far less for jobs legal citizens wouldn't even consider for that hourly wage, we can't complain they are still here...

Somebody has to hire them and is making a profit, right?

The country doesn't have to depend on them. If we didn't pay people to sit on their butts and do nothing then we wouldn't need them. Instead we've created a welfare state where we literally pay some of our citizens just to sit on their butts and do nothing.

[JRScott]

I find it bemusing that we can carry on a discussion about ILLEGAL aliens and never address the concept of removing them. It's as though we've accepted them ans the law means nothing.

Here's my plan for health care for illegals. If they are sick, treat them in a prison hospital.

I actually pointed out a few posts before this one of yours that we should seal our border