Seahawks Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) It is simply wrong for the government to confiscate from one person in order to pay for someone else's medical insurance. If "the rich" choose to pay for their own insurance, do they still have to pay into the system for "free" health care? Hell thats a joke in itself. Do you really think the rich will pay??? Not at all they know how to hide there money. It will be the middle class paying for the lower class. Get it straight. Then it will just be the poor and the rich Edited May 31, 2007 by Seahawks Quote
mattp Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 I vaguely agree with Seahawks on this cynical view of things! Not quite, but he DOES have a point. Quote
jjd Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Okay, if a member of the "middle class" can get private health insurance, do they have to contribute to the "free" system? Quote
Seahawks Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Okay, if a member of the "middle class" can get private health insurance, do they have to contribute to the "free" system? Kind of dumb question, it not really free, someone pays. So if the poor can't pay and the rich know how to get around paying who going to pay??? I think you can answer that. Quote
jjd Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 So then people really are forced into government-run health care, even if they don't want it. Quote
JayB Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Okay, if a member of the "middle class" can get private health insurance, do they have to contribute to the "free" system? Kind of dumb question, it not really free, someone pays. So if the poor can't pay and the rich know how to get around paying who going to pay??? I think you can answer that. I'd agree with you that the poor can't pay, but the data doesn't support the conclusion that the rich aren't paying. Top 1% pay ~ 23% of all taxes. Top 5% pay ~ 52.2% of all taxes. Top 20% pay ~ 68.2% of all taxes. These percentages have been trending upwards ever since Reagan cut the top marginal rate. This is the data. People can argue about whether this is fair per their particular conception of the term ad infinitum. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf Quote
Dechristo Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Do you really think the rich will pay??? Not at all they know how to hide there money. tell me where and we'll both go get it Quote
ericb Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Again, if you or a member of your family had cancer, a serious illness, or suffered some major accident and had to switch jobs for any reason COBRA would do you no good whatsoever and the only coverage you could get would be incredibly expensive and would not cover your pre-existing conditions - you'd be screwed. Think differently and you're just kidding yourself. If you develop cancer in a smaller company that self-insures you can bet your ass in most cases they'll do everything humanly possible to get rid of you. As for how the healthcare system fails me - well, I'm self-employed so it fails me instantly by the fact I and my family pay exorbitant rates for coverage. It fails me because I know how badly our system burdens employers and makes us less competitive as a nation - and that effects my business. It fails me because paying for the medical costs of un- and under-insured Americans costs inordinately more than it should and comes out of my pocket. It fail me, you, and all of us by making us incredibly less competitive and as an obstacle to the widespread adoption of preventative medicine. Aetna has no pre-existing conditions clause....I just brought my pregnant wife onto my policy, and they will cover all of her birthing costs, just like they would if she got pregnant while insured by them......again, in the competitive market for labor/benefits, pre-existing conditions clauses are not as prevalent has the fear-mongers would have you to believe. Also, sounds like you are making a conscious decision to be self-employed, and thus self-insured - while bitching about the cost of insurance....interesting. My guess is that you've run the numbers and figured out that you are economically better off taking full-margin on your output, and paying for your own insurance rather than working for the man - again sounds like a personal choice. Quote
Seahawks Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Okay, if a member of the "middle class" can get private health insurance, do they have to contribute to the "free" system? Kind of dumb question, it not really free, someone pays. So if the poor can't pay and the rich know how to get around paying who going to pay??? I think you can answer that. I'd agree with you that the poor can't pay, but the data doesn't support the conclusion that the rich aren't paying. Top 1% pay ~ 23% of all taxes. Top 5% pay ~ 52.2% of all taxes. Top 20% pay ~ 68.2% of all taxes. These percentages have been trending upwards ever since Reagan cut the top marginal rate. This is the data. People can argue about whether this is fair per their particular conception of the term ad infinitum. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf Does this include all those really rich that have there money in other places? Quote
Dechristo Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Does this include all those really rich that have there money in other places? goddammit, Seahawks, tell me where! Quote
JosephH Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 So then people really are forced into government-run health care, even if they don't want it. I send my kid to private school and happily pay for public education as well - there is absolutely no difference. Quote
JosephH Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Aetna has no pre-existing conditions clause....I just brought my pregnant wife onto my policy, and they will cover all of her birthing costs, just like they would if she got pregnant while insured by them......again, in the competitive market for labor/benefits, pre-existing conditions clauses are not as prevalent has the fear-mongers would have you to believe. And how much do you suppose that coverage actually costs (in total). The question was if you, your wife, or child ended up with cancer and for some reason had to switch employers what do you suppose would be the result? And how many people do you suppose can afford coverage like that? Also, sounds like you are making a conscious decision to be self-employed, and thus self-insured - while bitching about the cost of insurance....interesting. Yep, that's how the country was built. My views as both a self-employed person and as an employer are no different than most all employers grappling with the issue of the high cost of healthcare and the rapidly declining return on the dollars spent. Small business is being jack-hammered by healthcare costs. Again, just what percentage of our citizens have coverage like yours - and even yours is incredibly fragile if anything catastrophic occured and you had to change jobs. P.S. A survey just released said 51% of Americans had deferred filling a perscription or seeking medical help due to cost considerations - sounds like a great and highly competitive nation, doesn't it - a real leader. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 P.S. A survey just released said 51% of Americans had deferred filling a perscription or seeking medical help due to cost considerations - sounds like a great and highly competitive nation, doesn't it - a real leader. It seems completely rational that individuals would consider cost when deciding upon their own utilization of healthcare. It is pretty obvious that in socialized plans governments have no problem rationing based on cost. In any event company paid plans exist only because premiums are a deductible business expenses and not considered income to the employees. Quote
ericb Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Aetna has no pre-existing conditions clause....I just brought my pregnant wife onto my policy, and they will cover all of her birthing costs, just like they would if she got pregnant while insured by them......again, in the competitive market for labor/benefits, pre-existing conditions clauses are not as prevalent has the fear-mongers would have you to believe. And how much do you suppose that coverage actually costs (in total). The question was if you, your wife, or child ended up with cancer and for some reason had to switch employers what do you suppose would be the result? And how many people do you suppose can afford coverage like that? You like the random statistics and anecdotes, I like to use personal experience. A buddy of mine just left his company can came to work for my company. He had a rare form of cancer (sarcoma) back in 2003, and although he was given a clean bill of health, continues to be checked yearly. He had no issues getting health insurance at our employer at the same price as everyone else...as I said....no pre-existing conditions clause - similar to many other large companies in the Seattle area. Life insurance was an entirely different matter, but that's a different story for a different day. Quote
Seahawks Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Does this include all those really rich that have there money in other places? goddammit, Seahawks, tell me where! Go read Trumps book with Forbes. This will give you just a small idea. They have fucking people on there payrolls to do this shit. Get a clue buddy. Quote
mattp Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In my own personal experience I have never switched insurance without encountering a pre-existing conditions clause. The best coverage I have ever had as a self employed individual may have ben Group Health, and it really kind of sucked when I needed physical therapy or other "extra's." Every small employer I know has found the cost of insuring employees to be extremely burdensome. Many self employed people I know have only catastrophic coverage or none at all because of the cost - a "personal choice," you might say, based on their need to buy lattes or whatever. My wife is a massage therapist and she provides a specialized treatment for lymphedema, common in cancer patients, but a condition our own Olyclimber recently had from another cause other than radiation therapy. Even when her services are prescribed by a doctor and fully covered under the terms of a policy, the insurance companies delay payment and try to negotiate the price and etc. This discourages her and virtually every massage practitioner from serving insurance patients. Virtually every clinic, doctor or other provider you go to has a deal where if you are self-paying, you can get a hefty discount - 30% if you pay the date of service. This is their way of getting around the insurance company policies that say they cannot charge extra for insurance billing. The cost of waiting six months to be paid (no exaggeration) and filling out all the paperwork is HUGE. My wife and I almost never go to the doctor - we've been seen less than a total of ten times in the last five years. We don't get good preventative care. Yet we pay $6,000 a year. It sounds to me like maybe you, ericb, don'e know how well you have it. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Virtually every clinic, doctor or other provider you go to has a deal where if you are self-paying, you can get a hefty discount - 30% if you pay the date of service. This is their way of getting around the insurance company policies that say they cannot charge extra for insurance billing. The cost of waiting six months to be paid (no exaggeration) and filling out all the paperwork is HUGE. Huh? While I agree with the time value of money I also think that cases where healthcare providers/facilities collect 70% of charges (on average) is rare. What are the costs associated with collecting on self-pays? I would bet they can be HUGE. There is a great deal of competition for cash paying customers => see increase in the offering of bariatric services. These competitive services however tend to cater to the well to do. Quote
JosephH Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 You like the random statistics and anecdotes, I like to use personal experience. A buddy of mine just left his company can came to work for my company. He had a rare form of cancer (sarcoma) back in 2003, and although he was given a clean bill of health, continues to be checked yearly. He had no issues getting health insurance at our employer at the same price as everyone else...as I said....no pre-existing conditions clause - similar to many other large companies in the Seattle area. Life insurance was an entirely different matter, but that's a different story for a different day. Now I've made it repeatedly clear I have no doubt you work for an employer with superb coverage, care to say who? Microsoft? Safeco? I'm guessing not Boeing or WaMu. But again, what are the odds of you maintaining that coverage switching from your current employer? And, again, how much do you suppose that coverage actually costs (in total) and how many people or even employers do you suppose can afford coverage like that? Is your point that everyone should get the same coverage as a well-educated, white male? Or are you saying we should compete for healthcare and only high achievers should be so rewarded? Maybe all our infrastructure should be the same way? You know only well-educated, highly competitive individuals should get good roads, clean water, and sewage systems. As a businessman I can assure you universal healthcare is a foundational competitive advantage for our country - without it we will continue to decline. Quote
mattp Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) I'm not exactly sure what you wrote there, PP, but I think you may have misread what I posted. The cost of collection is extremely low if the self-paying customer pays at the time of service -- and they offer these "pay at time of service" discounts in recognition of this fact. I have seen these discounts offered not only at every physical therapy / massage / etc. provider I have been to, but they offer the same thing at outpatient clinics including one run by Swedish Hospital here in Ballard. These clinics are NOT serving rich people. Edited June 1, 2007 by mattp Quote
mattp Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 As a businessman I can assure you universal healthcare is a foundational competitive advantage for our country - without it we will continue to decline. Better public education to produce the qualified workforce that we need to remain competitive wouldn't hurt, either. Quote
JosephH Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 I peg healthcare as a prerequisite for a qualified workforce. Folks can't concentrate on acquiring an education and skills if their families are constantly battling healthcare issues and costs. Quote
Seahawks Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) As a businessman I can assure you universal healthcare is a foundational competitive advantage for our country - without it we will continue to decline. Better public education to produce the qualified workforce that we need to remain competitive wouldn't hurt, either. When people get things for free they don't work harder. But hell when they don't work hard I guess you can just shoot em. Edited June 1, 2007 by Seahawks Quote
mattp Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 When people get things for free they don't work harder. Are you saying that students in private schools work harder than those in public schools? I don't know for a fact, but it is just as likely the other way around. Quote
Seahawks Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 When people get things for free they don't work harder. Are you saying that students in private schools work harder than those in public schools? I don't know for a fact, but it is just as likely the other way around. Are there parents paying??? Then I'd say that private school is free, but hell the tongue lashing from the parents might get them moving. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.