Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 84

Thread: Does the US Health System need to be changed?

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,020
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4248444]We are finishing 28th and 4th from the bottom in infant mortality. Infant mortality is directly affected by perinatal care which we appear to be lackig in.

    Stop making excuses. Our system needs to be fixed.[/QUOTE]

    But wait -- I thought we could care less about a "fetus" until it's born? Why should more $$ be put into a lifeless piece of flesh?:huh:

    Interesting how they only seem to matter when it fits the argument . . .

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4248574]bit can not be held responsible for the accuracy of his posts. maybe you missed that.[/QUOTE]

    my greater point is there exists tort reform in many states and overall costs are still going up. malpractice premiums go down that's great for certain doctors but it doesn't lower the cost of an MRI.

    and also let me add that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare (which hasn't really kicked in yet) makes it possible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare. That's a positive change and the repeal folks could never get it removed. People actually like not being screwed by insurance companies.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,020
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248614]
    and also let me add that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare (which hasn't really kicked in yet) makes it possible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare. That's a positive change and the repeal folks could never get it removed. [B]People actually like not being screwed by insurance companies.[/B][/QUOTE]

    I've never understood this. Why should an insurance company "have" to cover someone with a pre-existing condition? I mean, I get it -- some people think we have a "right" to health-care (something I disagree with). But why does a private company "have" to offer such care? Why do they have to insure someone they KNOW is going to be costly to their business?

    This is where I think the gov't should offer something (for a price). If you have a pre-existing condition, you can get "basic" gov't care, or pay whatever you have to on your own. It wouldn't be nearly as comprehensive as private care would -- you might have to wait for years like in other countries. But it would still make more sense than "forcing" a private corporation to do something that's obviously not in their financial best interest . . .

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248614]my greater point is there exists tort reform in many states and overall costs are still going up. malpractice premiums go down that's great for certain doctors but it doesn't lower the cost of an MRI.

    and also let me add that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare (which hasn't really kicked in yet) makes it possible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare. [B]That's a positive change[/B] and the repeal folks could never get it removed. People actually like not being screwed by insurance companies.[/QUOTE]

    No, it's not - it guarantees that premiums go up for the rest of us.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248614]my greater point is there exists tort reform in many states and overall costs are still going up. malpractice premiums go down that's great for certain doctors but it doesn't lower the cost of an MRI.

    and also let me add that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare (which hasn't really kicked in yet) makes it possible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare. That's a positive change and the repeal folks could never get it removed. People actually like not being screwed by insurance companies.[/QUOTE]

    Wow that is a great change. The cool thing is that with the new pre-existing law conditions law in place people wont need to carry insurance at all. You can save the 25K per year then when you get sick with cancer you can just call Aetna and Obama will force them to take you on and pass the bills over to the suckers that buy insurance year round. Thats great. Their redistributing the health care from the suckers that pay for it to the ones that don't. Of course premiums will continue go up dramatically as they already have due to that provision but at least progressive social justice will be served.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;4248504]Agreed. Parts of it do.

    But it doesn't need to be replaced by a system that administers care based on the whims of government wonks with zero qualifications in most things.[/QUOTE]


    As opposed to now when a few well paid executives with zero qualifications make those decisions?

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4248704]Wow that is a great change. The cool thing is that with the new pre-existing law conditions law in place people wont need to carry insurance at all. You can save the 25K per year then when you get sick with cancer you can just call Aetna and Obama will force them to take you on and pass the bills over to the suckers that buy insurance year round. Thats great. Their redistributing the health care from the suckers that pay for it to the ones that don't. Of course premiums will continue go up dramatically as they already have due to that provision but at least progressive social justice will be served.[/QUOTE]

    No - that's why there's a mandate.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4248472]Terrible stat to rely on - we report as "infant death" any baby, of any gestational age or size, that dies after exhibiting signs of life (heartbeat, pulse, breathing). Other states do not report as "infant death" babies that die after being born prematurely, babies that die after being born exceedingly small, or babies that are born with a heartbeat but never breathe.[/QUOTE]

    Did this study use two different definitions for "infant death", one applied to the USA and one to the rest of the world? Please show us the evidence for that.

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4248563]I suppose you missed the part about premium's dropping?

    You also miss the point a bit about cost controls. [B]Lower med-mal premiums mean services can be billed at lower rates. [/B] Less liability means less CYA tests, which means more savings. It's not [B]the[/B] answer, but if you think there's any one "answer" that can fix everything, as opposed to an accumulation of small but necessary steps, you're living in a fairy tale. And tort reform is one of those small but necessary steps - and there's no real reason to oppose it.[/QUOTE]

    The key here is the word "can". Services are not in actuality billed at lower rates even with lower med-mal premiums. Look at Texas, after malpractice awards were capped, medicare spending rose by nearly 25-30% over the next 4-5 years.

    No one opposes tort reform, its just that people who hang on to this as a major tool in reforming our health care system are living in a fantasy land. It will make just a tiny dent in the problem. Again, not opposed to it.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 11-23-2011 at 03:57 PM.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4248710]No - that's why there's a mandate.[/QUOTE]

    Obviously. Without the mandate the plan will need to be scrapped. The courts are likely to throw out the mandate this spring and the bill will go with it. Even with the mandate though the plan is not thought through. People can buy the lowest coverage and when they get sick switch to the highest levels of coverage. For me I would drop my PPO with out of network coverage and go to a basic high deductable HMO or EPO which is cheaper and limits doctor choices. Then if g-d forbid someone gets sick and needs better coverage I could simply switch it to the plan that covers the most stuff.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4248638]
    This is where I think the gov't should offer something (for a price). If you have a pre-existing condition, you can get "basic" gov't care, or pay whatever you have to on your own. .[/QUOTE]

    hmm that sounds a lot like a gov't take over! i actually agree it's just not politically feasible.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4248725] The courts are likely to throw out the mandate this spring and the bill will go with it. [/QUOTE]

    there is almost 200 years of legal precedence on current interpretation of the commerce clause. It's unlikely to be overturned by the courts.

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248730]there is almost 200 years of legal precedence on current interpretation of the commerce clause. It's unlikely to be overturned by the courts.[/QUOTE]

    If you say so. Lower court judges haven't agreed.

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4248805]If you say so. Lower court judges haven't agreed.[/QUOTE]

    political hack judges. if the supreme court repeals the ACA everything can fall. no need to buy insurance for your car anymore.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4248710]No - that's why there's a mandate.[/QUOTE]

    ...and the fine for non-compliance is less than the cost of a personal care plan. So why would anyone bother purchasing one until they get sick?

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248945]political hack judges.[/quote]

    "Political hack judges" = any judge who rules in a way I think is politically wrong?

    Or have you read the opinions and come to a conclusion about the legal merits, bit?

    [quote] if the supreme court repeals the ACA everything can fall. [B]no need to buy insurance for your car anymore.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Uh, no. I happen to think the DC Circuit makes a good argument for why the mandate is constitutional (and why the Constitution needs amending . . . though as I spend more time on it, I'm starting to see holes in that argument), but if the mandate gets struck down, it will be struck down on the theory that "not purchasing health insurance" is not an act of commerce and that Congress cannot require people to engage in acts of commerce.

    Purchasing a car, on the other hand, is an act of commerce. So the Congress can certainly require insurance as a requirement before buying a car.

    But you're also forgetting that Congress doesn't actually mandate auto insurance - states do. And state legislative ability isn't "restrained" by the scope of the commerce clause. More, driving is a privilege, and the State is well within its constitutional rights to say "you may not drive an uninsured vehicle"

    But other than that, it was an excellent point, bit ;)

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    By almost any responsible way of measuring, our health care system is severely lacking in many key areas. Some of these issues can be explained away, but the sum of the whole is damning. So while the most indoctrinated will continue to spew what they are programmed to say (we have the best health care system in the world!!!) most responsible Americans know that we need to fix the system.

    But the devil is in the details and fair-minded Americans can disagree on how to change it. However, the people who want to continue to kick the can down the road, due to political expediency or just sticking their head in the sand, are shameful.

    Capitalism is a wonderful thing. Greed is not. Work hard to enjoy the finer things; everyone is [B]not[/B] entitled to drive a fancy car or live in a mansion. But I will welcome a debate with any of my JI friends who say all Americans should not be allowed access to affordable health care. Reasonable health care should not be a perk for the affluent or even the employed. There are many decent, honest and hard working Americans who want to work but cannot due to the economy. Do people game the system? Without question. But reasonable health care should not be part of the "game" it is a human right. A child that gets cancer (as an example) should not be denied long term health care simply because he or she was born into a family that does not have the resources to go to a decent doctor or afford the medical bills.

    And lets save the tired and false argument that there is not enough money to make the system work. If we stopped sending billions to deposed dictators, sending billions in tax money to private companies to build roads and bridges in the middle east or using that tax money for private companies to build weapons so they can sell them to other countries (and then use those same weapons against us some day), we could afford to give decent health care to all Americans. In the current system we simply fail to do that.

    Everyone is not entitled to a lexus or an expensive mansion. That should be a reward for being innovative and working hard. Getting proper care should when you are sick should be something that all Americans should be entitled to.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 11-24-2011 at 06:27 AM.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    People need to take better care of themselves and their children, parents and grandparents. I suspect that will change the infant mortality and longevity rates substantially more than additional government reform of our health care system.

    Every person is going to die who enters the health care systema so will every person who doesn't. Much of our longevity and over all health has little to do with the system.

    We probably should have a basic National health care package with people being able to buy private insurance above the basic plan. Without people taking more responsability for their own general health I don't see that we will get a huge statistical improvement. Most of the statistical anomaly may be related to culture as much as system.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-24-2011 at 07:04 AM.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4249213]By almost any responsible way of measuring, our health care system is severely lacking in many key areas. Some of these issues can be explained away, but the sum of the whole is damning. So while the most indoctrinated will continue to spew what they are programmed to say (we have the best health care system in the world!!!) most responsible Americans know that we need to fix the system.

    But the devil is in the details and fair-minded Americans can disagree on how to change it. However, the people who want to continue to kick the can down the road, due to political expediency or just sticking their head in the sand, are shameful.

    Capitalism is a wonderful thing. Greed is not. Work hard to enjoy the finer things; everyone is [B]not[/B] entitled to drive a fancy car or live in a mansion. But I will welcome a debate with any of my JI friends who say all Americans should not be allowed access to affordable health care. Reasonable health care should not be a perk for the affluent or even the employed. There are many decent, honest and hard working Americans who want to work but cannot due to the economy. Do people game the system? Without question. But reasonable health care should not be part of the "game" it is a human right. A child that gets cancer (as an example) should not be denied long term health care simply because he or she was born into a family that does not have the resources to go to a decent doctor or afford the medical bills.

    And lets save the tired and false argument that there is not enough money to make the system work. If we stopped sending billions to deposed dictators, sending billions in tax money to private companies to build roads and bridges in the middle east or using that tax money for private companies to build weapons so they can sell them to other countries (and then use those same weapons against us some day), we could afford to give decent health care to all Americans. In the current system we simply fail to do that.

    Everyone is not entitled to a lexus or an expensive mansion. That should be a reward for being innovative and working hard. Getting proper care should when you are sick should be something that all Americans should be entitled to.[/QUOTE]

    If healthcare was "de coupled" from employment, change would happen. We have far too many people in this country who have NO IDEA how much health care costs.

    Congress, civil servants etc... basically have terrific healthcare for life...why change anything? But if health care was like auto insurance, EVERYONE would see the problem.

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,945
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4248638]Why should an insurance company "have" to cover someone with a pre-existing condition?[/QUOTE]

    Because this is what the a**holes used to do.

    Someone wants insurance? Fill out this form...and we will file it w/o looking at it all that much. But we will be happy to collect your premium payments. But wait? What's this? After 4 years, you want to file a claim? Let's take a closer look at your application.

    Holy cow! You got sick as a child? Claim denied...and no, we will NOT refund you your payments. How would we make money then? The only way to make money is to collect more in premiums than we pay out and the best way to pay out less is to deny people.

    LOLZ!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us