top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Health Insurance Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • banca rotta
    replied
    Originally posted by WhatMoney View Post
    Oh stop the BS!
    The numbers come from the US Census Bureau. Of course since the Census Bureau is part of the the US government you won't believe the numbers, but that's your problem.

    Here is the latest report (2008 statistics), released Sept 2009, which includes the latest health insurance statistics:

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

    Since you suspect that not all of the 47 Million without health insurance are "Americans" - well you would be correct. There are "only" 21.4 million White non-Hispanic uninsured Americans. It's all those "other people" who make up the rest - American Indians, Hawaiian natives, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. I'm not sure which of these non-white people you consider "Americans". The uninsured rate among Hispanic non-citizens is about 47%. So yes there is an estimated 7 Million non-citizen Hispanics living in the USA that do not have health insurance and are part of the 47 Million. The actual numbers are larger since these folks do not like to be counted. Not surprisingly, poverty and lack of health insurance track well among all groups.

    Sooner or later you extremists will stop playing the race card. My focus is on taxpaying Americans of all colors. In my book they come first.

    What I meant in case you didn't understand was that I can't confirm nor deny it. Maybe the numbers are correct, maybe they aren't. There is no one left that any of us can trust.

    People like you drink the "cool aid" and believe anything "our leaders" tell you.

    Now I would like you to take a deep breath and relax and enjoy your Christmas knowing that "47 million" of you fine people will have your free health care once bama strokes his pen.

    Hopefully you will all make out your thankyou cards to the other 250 million Americans that you seem to forget about.

    I guess when all 300 million of us declare bk from this insanity then you will wake up.

    Leave a comment:


  • JRScott
    replied
    The 47 million number touted by Obama includes:

    Those currently qualified for Medicaid but have not signed up for it for whatever reason.
    Those currently qualified for Medicare but for some reason never signed up.
    Those in the country illegally and thus not entitled to Medicaid or Medicare.

    Exact numbers of categories is hard to establish but really the actual number of those who are American Citizens and not eligible for already existing federal programs is most likely between 15-20 million.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhatMoney
    replied
    Originally posted by banca rotta View Post
    Always wondered exactly how accurate this "47 million" number really is. I cannot confirm nor deny it, just wondering if it is that high and if they are "Americans".

    The only source behind these numbers are politicians and the state run media which lost all credibility.
    Oh stop the BS!
    The numbers come from the US Census Bureau. Of course since the Census Bureau is part of the the US government you won't believe the numbers, but that's your problem.

    Here is the latest report (2008 statistics), released Sept 2009, which includes the latest health insurance statistics:

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

    Since you suspect that not all of the 47 Million without health insurance are "Americans" - well you would be correct. There are "only" 21.4 million White non-Hispanic uninsured Americans. It's all those "other people" who make up the rest - American Indians, Hawaiian natives, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. I'm not sure which of these non-white people you consider "Americans". The uninsured rate among Hispanic non-citizens is about 47%. So yes there is an estimated 7 Million non-citizen Hispanics living in the USA that do not have health insurance and are part of the 47 Million. The actual numbers are larger since these folks do not like to be counted. Not surprisingly, poverty and lack of health insurance track well among all groups.

    The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites increased in 2008 to 10.8 percent and 21.3 million, from 10.4 percent and 20.5 million in 2007. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for Blacks in 2008 were not statistically different from 2007, at 19.1 percent and 7.3 million.

    The percentage of uninsured Hispanics decreased to 30.7 percent in 2008, from 32.1 percent in 2007. The number of uninsured Hispanics was not statistically different in 2008, at 14.6 million.

    Leave a comment:


  • momisery
    replied
    I would agree there is no real way to verify the numbers, but I would say the proof is in the bk pudding. If 67% of our BK are directly related to medical debt, then insurance is not doing its job. Either in coverage, or in not providing coverage.

    Leave a comment:


  • banca rotta
    replied
    Originally posted by momisery View Post
    What we have now does not work for 47 million Americans and that number grows everyday.


    Always wondered exactly how accurate this "47 million" number really is. I cannot confirm nor deny it, just wondering if it is that high and if they are "Americans".

    The only source behind these numbers are politicians and the state run media which lost all credibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • momisery
    replied
    JR, I believe that they did away with the majority vote and created a total disaster. I do agree that we need amendments, but some are not working at all like this one. As for healthcare of course it was not address it didn't really exist at the time to govern it.

    We know a lot of things don't work, but we don't work on doing the things that do work. What we have now does not work for 47 million Americans and that number grows everyday. That number also only represents those who do not have insurance, it does not reflect those that have insurance but can't afford to use it unless they have a heart attack or something. We spend too much money on ads for big burgers and not enough on education and holding business accountable for their blunders. They changed the oil in french fries finally, but they continue to maxi size everything so, they should pay for the damages they create. They are selling snake oil to people, like the burgers will make them happy and social... at best it is all they can afford is the real reason they are there. So, make it a bit more healthy how about a little wheat in the bread, or grain, maybe some lettuce and tomato instead of paying more and more stock holders. The crux of this mess I think, and of course you don't have to agree that is what is so great about living here.. is that we don't have INVESTORS, we have GAMBLERS in the stock markets. They don't build anything, or create/invent.. instead they gamble on what goes up or down and expect big returns for sitting on their behinds. We give them huge tax breaks on unearned income and tax the heck out of earned income as if working for a living is worth less. Make stocks be investing in building and createing and maybe I will like big business a lot more and our country will do a lot better too. By the way.. have a great holiday weekend. I love this board because people discuss things. I think we are all so much close to the same principals then we realize. IF we could simply all talk instead of shouting... this board does that... I like that.. very cool!!

    Leave a comment:


  • JRScott
    replied
    Originally posted by momisery View Post
    Our government was set up as a majority vote, the filibuster 60% came about later. They keep talking about going back to the constitution but they have not yet. If that were in place the "sweet deals" would not be necessary. The super majority vote came about as an amendment from what I am reading. So, maybe if we moved back to that we could avoid some of the give aways to get votes for the last person holding out?
    If you go by the Constitution there is no right to health insurance or medical care and it wasn't a right given to the Federal Congress in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Thereby the 10th Amendment it would be a State power not a federal one. Congress could regulate it over state borders but that's not what they are doing. The main problem the states have run into is that people are not willing to pay high enough taxes to support the health cares systems thus every state that has tried it has repealed it except Massachusetts which probably will have to within 5 years, Hawaii's didn't even last a year I don't think.

    To change Article I Section 8 would first require a constitutional amendment which is far harder than the 60% required. The 60% majority was so that they'd have a chance under most circumstances to override any Presidential veto, however the Constitution doesn't set it at that and leaves that up to Congress itself.

    By Article I Section 7 this bill shouldn't of originated in the Senate since it has a revenue component and all of those have to originate in the House (That's why after the final bill is written in committee it has to first go to the House for passage then to the Senate to become law).

    By Article I Section 9 the bill in the Senate violates the US Constitution by giving favorable treatment to some states like Nebraska and Louisiana over other states as well as some insurance companies over others in essence penalizing all others without due process (It's the same claim they used to challenge the stripping of ACORN's funding since to date its not yet been found guilty of wrongdoing).

    Leave a comment:


  • momisery
    replied
    Our government was set up as a majority vote, the filibuster 60% came about later. They keep talking about going back to the constitution but they have not yet. If that were in place the "sweet deals" would not be necessary. The super majority vote came about as an amendment from what I am reading. So, maybe if we moved back to that we could avoid some of the give aways to get votes for the last person holding out?

    Leave a comment:


  • JRScott
    replied
    It's amazing that folks think things are going to be run better by the government.

    First off there are serious issues with this backdoor trading and contrary to what you think the founding fathers were against it and George Washington warned against such partisanship in his farewell address. Jefferson and Hamilton both were against large debt even though they despised one another they both agreed it would lead the nation to destruction.

    Giving Nebraska free Medicaid while making everyone else pay for it is wrong, and if you are from any other state keep in mind your taxes will go up and Nebraska's will not, I'm not talking federal taxes I'm talking state. This on top of 300 million that was given to Louisiana for their Medicare expenses. How is that fair to your state, or mine? Where is the change that Obama promised? Wasn't he going to end the business as usual? There are no free lunches.

    Do you really believe they'll cut Medicare by 500 billion dollars? They couldn't even write a health care reform bill without giving billions away to various states and districts. That's where the waste and corruption is. They can't stop it because they themselves are to corrupt to do so.

    The government has run AmTrack for 30 years and in 30 years it has not made a profit, Social Security is 13 trillion in the hole right now, Medicare is 73 trillion in the hole, Medicare Prescription Drugs is another 18 trillion in the hole, The Post Office is in negative cash flow for five straight years, Nothing the government ever runs comes in on budget. It doesn't know how to do so because they give so many 'special' deals just to get votes. It's bribery and should be called what it is and any senator that votes for a bill that does not at least provide by population his state's fair share of any funding in it is basically a traitor to his state. Same with the Representatives who vote for whatever even if their district gets nothing.

    Under this plan you will not see better health care, you will pay more for health care. Health care will become more expensive, rationing will increase, and health care in general will decrease. There are key elements missing from the bill that are necessary to meet the goal. Tort Reform is one of them, however the other major problem is we simply don't have enough doctors and nurses to give daily care to 20 million more Americans and there is no provision to assist with educating doctors and nurses to fill the gap. Why not open up insurance to intrastate competition?

    If we really were looking for helping health care, would you really need all these back door deals just to get votes? If it could stand on its own merits would they not vote for it without kickbacks and special treatment? The many exceptions in our laws is what has largely led us to this place, keep in mind that their are also exceptions for some insurance companies and not others in the legislation.

    If they were really going to cut the 500 billion from Medicare wouldn't those cuts be specified in the legislation, trust me seniors vote in higher numbers than any other age group and your not going to find much will in Washington to cut their benefits and you can't cut 500 billion without cutting benefits. Without those cuts the bill adds 500 billion to the national debt and is far from deficit neutral.

    I may not agree with what needs to be done with Dr. Howard Dean but I do agree with him the current bill in the Senate is not going to fix the problems and should be thrown away and start over. Hopefully whatever comes out of conference neither the House nor Senate will pass and they'll start over on a good bill without all this excess spending just to buy votes that does nothing to help Health Care.

    Leave a comment:


  • justbroke
    replied
    Originally posted by tigergem View Post
    My post wasn't just about denying care. I mean c'mon. $73 MILLION dollars he got? For what? It's no wonder they deny coverage!
    First, it's a business. Until we take the middleman insurance companies out of the equation, or reduce their profits to just 3% over costs (or so)... they will continue to make money and increase shareholder value. Everything is interconnected as this company trades on the stock market as well. Insurance companies don't deny claims to pay bonuses... they deny claims to preserve (or even grow) the insurance pool. Without a large insurance pool, they are nothing more than Social Security operating out of their running budget.

    Insurance companies must, as a practical matter, deny claims. That's just the business of insurance. If an insurance company paid every claim, it would quickly be out of business.

    To fix this, and I was short on my response last time, you need single payer, and a plethora of other reform. I mean single-payer is removing "insurers" from the equation. Medical providers invoice and bill the Federal Government. But, alas, without reform, this won't work because there is so much Medicare and Medicaid fraud these days, it will make your head spin.

    There's nothing like seeing the FBI raid a private insurer on an otherwise quiet business day. (I have witnessed this!)

    Leave a comment:


  • lrprn
    replied
    Originally posted by JRScott View Post
    Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, ...
    Yes, but it will be a lot less people than are denied even basic care now.

    I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.
    JR, you seem to think that care isn't being rationed now. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

    Every single private insurance company in the US rations care every single day and has been doing so for decades. They ration it by how much money it's going to cost them. The need to ensure keeping a healthy profit for their shareholders trumps everything, including keeping their own promises to their policy holders when those policy holders need their insurance the most. Insurance companies ration care by making decisions in secret behind closed doors based solely on cost, not medical need. They ration care by rewarding their employees who carve out and drop policy holders who paid premiums in good faith using every excuse in the book to deny coverage to save money for their own pockets and the pockets of their shareholders. This *IS* true rationing of care, and it's based solely on money.

    Help me understand why you think rationing based only on how much money a person has is ok (the current state), but making clinical decisions based on solid repeatable medical research about what works best to cure medical problems and providing that rather than also providing a lot of other treatments that aren't as effective and don't provide good medical outcomes is not ok? This is the "rationing" that everyone on the right is making into a scarey bogeyman.

    Why do some people want to continue to have expensive, ineffective treatments that don't work very well and still have their insurance or the government pay for it? Taking what truly doesn't work out of the system as options frees up a great deal of money to put towards what does work. Frankly as a healthcare professional, I just don't get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Mi
    replied
    Originally posted by JRScott View Post
    Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.

    Mom yes I see it as more of the same from Washington. They are getting bolder and bolder with their corruption.
    Currently we get denied care because our illness isn't profitable. Health Ins. Executives get bonuses for the numbers of denials they have. Why is that better than being denied by the government?

    Leave a comment:


  • tigergem
    replied
    My post wasn't just about denying care. I mean c'mon. $73 MILLION dollars he got? For what? It's no wonder they deny coverage!

    And to correct something in my previous post, you cannot comment on Cigna's facebook page because the cowards have blocked it to comments.

    Leave a comment:


  • lrprn
    replied
    There's nothing new about this, JR. This kind of internal horse-trading to get votes for bills has been going on as long as we've had a Congress.

    This is what our founding fathers intended when they set up Congress to work the way it does in the Constitution. Do a Google search for 'earmarks' and for 'pork barrel' - the 'tit for tat' 'I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" vote trading inside Congress has been done extensively by both parties and has been going on for two centuries non-stop. Happy reading.

    Leave a comment:


  • JRScott
    replied
    Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.

    Mom yes I see it as more of the same from Washington. They are getting bolder and bolder with their corruption.

    Leave a comment:

bottom Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X