KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 That's certainly true - but it's difficult for them to do any of the above unless there are structural impediments to competition that prevent people from comparing company A to company B and switching, not getting their policy from company A in the first place because the word on the street is they don't cover the claims that they're legally obligated to, etc. Except when 1) there is nobody with a better "word on the street to switch to" 2) you have a "preexisting condition" and can't switch 3) your employer pays a large part of your premium and you can't switch without paying *all* the premium Simply allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines would enable millions of people who can't presently afford insurance to do so. So, I raised this question before. Why the fuck can't insurers sell policies across state lines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 And how come no one has told Obama about it? Jay may have solved our nations health care problems. We just need to get this idea box in Obama's lap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 And how come no one has told Obama about it? Jay may have solved our nations health care problems. We just need to get this idea box in Obama's lap! Why is it disallowed in the first place? Sounds anti-American to me. It limits choice and competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 it sounds like its because of the federation of the states... first google hit for me: http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2008/across_state_lines_explained_why_selling_health_insurance_across_state_lines_not_answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 it sounds like its because of the federation of the states... first google hit for me: http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2008/across_state_lines_explained_why_selling_health_insurance_across_state_lines_not_answer that article sounds like total BS to me. "it would be worse ... because it just would!" by allowing selling across state lines you would have more choices than you do now, and could always choose NOT to buy a policy outside your state. And no, I'm not saying this is the "solution to all our problems" (and neither is Jay) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 o again, paging any christians in the crowd, how can you deny your fellow man esential healthcare on the grounds of his poverty or even laziness and not feel like a complete hypocrite? to oppose obamacare is not to oppose health care... to oppose obamacare w/o supporting anything other than the status quo, which relegates a large chunk of our fellowman to low quality/non-existent healthcare is retarded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 i have no idea about the report or that org. but just saying you always have a "choice" doesn't mean that such a change won't have a negative effect on the overall ecosystem of healthcare. i haven't read the report, that is just a synopsis. maybe we can get Jay to read and counterpoint on it for us. i don't know how to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 i have no idea about the report or that org. but just saying you always have a "choice" doesn't mean that such a change won't have a negative effect on the overall ecosystem of healthcare. i haven't read the report, that is just a synopsis. maybe we can get Jay to read and counterpoint on it for us. i don't know how to read. right, but isn't Obama claiming he is adding more 'competition' with his plan? allowing you to purchase insurance across state lines increases competition. but, no, it's bad in this case... hmm... bad smell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 well read the report then! maybe there is meat in it. anyway, so now we have two items for the Obama Healthcare Idea Box: 1. Health insurance across state lines 2. The Viking Way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 well read the report then! maybe there is meat in it. anyway, so now we have to items for the Obama Healthcare Idea Box: 1. Health insurance across state lines 2. The Viking Way 3. Mandatory food rationing and forced exercise for lard asses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well if you look into my detailed report on the Viking Way, you'll find that it covers those points. Section IV. Paragraph 3 states "All mead must rationed such that all warriors can slake their thirsts after pillaging and looting each village". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well if you look into my detailed report on the Viking Way, you'll find that it covers those points. Section IV. Paragraph 3 states "All mead must rationed such that all warriors can slake their thirsts after pillaging and looting each village". 4. liposuctioning lardasses and making heating oil from the fat deposits This kills two birds with one stone, helping control energy costs using a renewable energy source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 i'm noticing my ability to create complete sentences and spell correctly has been greatly diminished. can i buy insurance for this? probably not...it is pre-existing. http://gawain.membrane.com/insurance/nervous_disorders.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) In this case, as with those above, the shortcomings of the current regulatory model have more to do with driving up the cost of insurance than insurance companies cheating consumers. I'm sure that this happens given the incentives that you cited, but it'd be interesting to look at what percentage increase in premiums due to cheating consumers is relative to other factors. I think what you'd find if you did look into it (don't worry we know you won't) is that the incentives to profit have taken the policies Kojak mentions from the realms of "cheating customers" into Standard Operating Procedure across the industry. At any rate, great post. You managed to avoid any question of the $12,900,000,000 in profits made in 2007 (a 400% increase since 2000), implied that too much regulation is really the problem, and suggest we carry on an endless(?) fact-finding mission to gather "all the evidence necessary" before doing anything that might impinge on those profits. You'd have made a great anti-Abolitionist Jay! Edited August 19, 2009 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 can we agree on 2 basic notions? 1) some how, some way, healthcare needs to be cheaper 2) everybody should be covered, all the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 can we agree on 2 basic notions? 1) some how, some way, healthcare needs to be cheaper 2) everybody should be covered, all the time TANSTAAFL, dude. 1) health care costs need to be affordable, even if that means you can't buy a new Hummer every 3 years 2) everybody should pay something to be covered, even if the money is garnished from their wages or extracted by auctioning off the shit someone bought instead of paying for coverage 3) exceptions made to 2) to help the truly vulnerable, "truly" being the operative word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 3)everybody should pull their weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 So, I hear your concerns too. Could reform *start* with just the following 1) ensuring catastrophic coverage is affordable - meaning monthly charge and a reasonable annual deductible 2) ensuring insurance companies may not stall, delay, avoid paying out - how about pay first, then ask questions, 3) figuring out a way to eliminate the "preexisting conditions" requirements balancing that with folks being "forced" to buy coverage (instead of just paying nothing until they are hurt or sick and then suddenly applying for coverage). I could also see progressive premiums (or tax credits to ensure this) for 1), but would never support zero copays/deductibles for large numbers of people. great post KK - i like when i can agree w/ you - doctors need to make a living, and a good one comeasurate w/ their herculean efforts in eduction, but it is fundementally fucked to make healthcare a for-profit enterprise - drug dealers in the hood don't want you to stop buying the drugs, they want you hooked for good, preferably on an ever-increasing slope of willingess to pay, pay, pay somehow we need a system that provides affordable, universal healthcare that doesn't remove the incentive for bright people/organizations to study medicine and innovate new treatments, preventions and cures for disease Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 3) exceptions made to 2) to help the truly vulnerable, "truly" being the operative word words like "truly" are what send the crazies running for the exits w/ "death panels" on their lips, since it implies judgement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 3) exceptions made to 2) to help the truly vulnerable, "truly" being the operative word words like "truly" are what send the crazies running for the exits w/ "death panels" on their lips, since it implies judgement do we all remember what this guy said about judgement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 3) exceptions made to 2) to help the truly vulnerable, "truly" being the operative word words like "truly" are what send the crazies running for the exits w/ "death panels" on their lips, since it implies judgement It may be tough to enforce but face it - there are people whining about no coverage and affordability because they don't want to pay shit even though they can. They have other priorities and think others should pay for them. Then there are those who really can't afford to pay for coverage. Even if it were "affordable". The problem with simply saying insurance companies can't charge for "preexisting conditions" is that people can choose not to buy insurance until they are sick/hurt, then buy it to get "covered", then once treatment ends, cancel their policies. Repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 can we agree on 2 basic notions? 1) some how, some way, healthcare needs to be cheaper 2) everybody should be covered, all the time You sick commie fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 can we agree on 2 basic notions? 1) some how, some way, healthcare needs to be cheaper 2) everybody should be covered, all the time You sick commie fuck. In commie countries you have a minimal amount of care (very shitty). To get decent care you have to pay/bribe the nursing staff, doctors, etc. or go abroad. Ask any ex-pat from the former Soviet Union for details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 If I can summarize a few others views. I'm not sure everyone is signing on that it's the Governments place to get in and be mom and dad here. Perhaps I can illustrate by asking this way: Can we not all agree that food and water are basic and critical necessities and more important than health care? Does it then not follow that the Gov't is responsible for making sure everyone is fed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 3)everybody should pull their weight. not that i'm calling you or anybody a communist, or even that i think every element of communism is utterly hopeless, but your quote above can't help but remind any decent history teacher of karl marx's, the father of communism, famous quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communist/socialists have it right, i agree - everybody should have basic healthcare (i'm not talking tit jobs or super-radical disease treatments now), and everybody should have to contriubte if they want to enjoy it (but naturally that can't include the elderly, the mentally/physically ill, the young, etc. - at which point we're already making so many exceptions it becomes hard to stick to the "you have to earn it it" mantra w/o seeming a wee bit silly) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.