Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 70







Post#1726 at 08-30-2010 11:36 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
08-30-2010, 11:36 AM #1726
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

No, actually the Renewal Generation was named by a Boomer (James50).







Post#1727 at 08-31-2010 06:48 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
08-31-2010, 06:48 AM #1727
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 08-31-2010 at 06:51 AM.







Post#1728 at 08-31-2010 09:53 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
08-31-2010, 09:53 AM #1728
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

The health care bill reminds me of that famous definition of a camel: "A horse designed by a committee."







Post#1729 at 08-31-2010 10:29 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
08-31-2010, 10:29 AM #1729
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This is a very telling article

Koch Industries Has Financial Stake in Derivatives and Pharmaceuticals, Not Just Oil

Health Care

Koch Industries produces through Koch Membrane Systems a vast amount of the chemicals that go into all pharmaceutical products. They are essentially a feeder for Big Pharma. The Koch Institute at MIT also has a strategic partnership with Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.

During the health care debate, pharmaceutical interests made a deal with the Obama Administration that limited their givebacks in the bill in exchange for stopping larger intrusions on their industry, like reimportation of drugs from Canada or bulk purchasing in Medicare

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/...-not-just-oil/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1730 at 08-31-2010 04:20 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
08-31-2010, 04:20 PM #1730
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

The Health Care Bill Explained at Last

The irony is that for all the apocalyptic rhetoric, the new health reform law is anything but radical. In fact, it closely resembles the 2006 reform in Massachusetts supported by then- governor Republican Mitt Romney.[^1] And most strikingly, it does not replace the current mix of US health insurance schemes with a single public health insurance program like Medicare. Instead, the 2010 reform legislation introduces a complex system of subsidies, mandates, regulations, and programs that build on our present patchwork arrangements and will affect Americans in different ways and at different times, depending on income, age, employment, and other considerations.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1731 at 08-31-2010 09:06 PM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
08-31-2010, 09:06 PM #1731
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

The one thing that stood out to me from that article was how the GOP's approval rating fell and remained on par with that of the Dem's during the entire duration of the gulf oil spill...







Post#1732 at 09-09-2010 10:03 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
09-09-2010, 10:03 AM #1732
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Not a big surprise:

Health Insurers Plan Hikes

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.
More like it, I think, the timing of this announcement and the "blame" they are putting on the reforms is a blatant attempt to turn support against health care reform and further sink the Democrats in November. These big corporations are shameless.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 09-09-2010 at 10:05 AM.







Post#1733 at 09-09-2010 10:07 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
09-09-2010, 10:07 AM #1733
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
More like it, I think, the timing of this announcement and the "blame" they are putting on the reforms is a blatant attempt to turn support against health care reform and further sink the Democrats in November. These big corporations are shameless.
And yet it was the big corporations that were given even more power through the so called reform. sigh
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1734 at 09-09-2010 10:49 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-09-2010, 10:49 AM #1734
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Not a big surprise:

Health Insurers Plan Hikes
Hey man. What part of "guaranteed customer-base" don't you understand?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1735 at 09-09-2010 11:01 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-09-2010, 11:01 AM #1735
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Hey man. What part of "guaranteed customer-base" don't you understand?
The individual mandate won't kick in for years, and that's if it's not repealed in the meantime; unlike the bill as a whole, which partisans like JPT are using misleading polls to falsely indicate is much more unpopular than it is, that portion really IS unpopular. So I very much doubt if that's the motivation for the rate increases. More like: "We can get away with this, therefore we will do it." Business as usual, same-old same-old.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 09-09-2010 at 11:04 AM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1736 at 09-09-2010 11:12 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-09-2010, 11:12 AM #1736
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
More like: "We can get away with this, therefore we will do it."
Highly likely.

Of course, just having had themselves enshrined into law has got to expand their conceptions of "what we can get away with", no? None of this is happening in isolation.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1737 at 09-09-2010 11:14 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-09-2010, 11:14 AM #1737
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

"The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won't significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats' argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party's biggest legislative achievements.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that insurance companies have proposed rate increases ranging from 1% to 9% nationwide that they attribute specifically to new health-law coverage mandates."

....followed by typically partisan comments from both sides.

read it here: http://bit.ly/cg2RYI

So now, the health care reform is shown to be a financial lemon. Can't we do anything right?

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1738 at 09-09-2010 11:21 AM by Xer H [at Chicago and Indiana joined Dec 2009 #posts 1,212]
---
09-09-2010, 11:21 AM #1738
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Chicago and Indiana
Posts
1,212

It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!

Any cost savings won't be seen for years, when other provisions of the bill take effect.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." —Albert Einstein

"The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal." —Albert Einstein

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein







Post#1739 at 09-09-2010 11:51 AM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
09-09-2010, 11:51 AM #1739
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
"The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won't significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats' argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party's biggest legislative achievements.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that insurance companies have proposed rate increases ranging from 1% to 9% nationwide that they attribute specifically to new health-law coverage mandates."

....followed by typically partisan comments from both sides.

read it here: http://bit.ly/cg2RYI

So now, the health care reform is shown to be a financial lemon. Can't we do anything right?

James50
Missing the point...

The point is not simply to decrease costs, but to make healthcare reasonably affordable to as many people as possible. Cost is only one of several problems that currently exists. Healthcare as a portion of gdp seems likely to increase at least in the short term as more people begin to take care of the health concerns. It isn't immediately clear to what extent that is a problem. Currently we have a labor glut; more people employed in the healthcare industry could ultimately be a good thing.

Further, we know some individuals will have to pay more for health care. For instance, healthy people who live in a non-community rating state are currently able to obtain a plan available only to healthy people and will likely pay more under the new system. However, they will have the security of knowing they will be able to purchase a plan at any time in their life, anywhere in the country regardless of their source of income or state of health at roughly the same cost (adjusted for age of course). Further, they now have the security of knowing the plan will not cease payments to to a lifetime limit. This is a significant improvement and will remove much of the fear and uncertainty from the healthcare system!







Post#1740 at 09-09-2010 11:57 AM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
09-09-2010, 11:57 AM #1740
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by Xer H View Post
It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!
How do you measure "costs" here? For instance, do you count the out of pocket expenses of 26 year olds who are unlucky enough to contract a major illness? Do you count the lingering effects of untreated conditions due to lack of health insurance?

With many young people living with family due to the recession this seems like an excellent stop gap solution to getting many of them covered with as little administrative effort as possible. Individually they likely have very few health problems meaning in many cases the insurance companies will pay out nothing at all and families will have an increase in peace of mind. In the rare instances that a young person does get seriously sick this policy could make the difference between a life altering or even life ending experience and a quicker return to good health and the job market when conditions improve.







Post#1741 at 09-09-2010 12:05 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-09-2010, 12:05 PM #1741
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
How do you measure "costs" here? For instance, do you count the out of pocket expenses of 26 year olds who are unlucky enough to contract a major illness? Do you count the lingering effects of untreated conditions due to lack of health insurance?

With many young people living with family due to the recession this seems like an excellent stop gap solution to getting many of them covered with as little administrative effort as possible. Individually they likely have very few health problems meaning in many cases the insurance companies will pay out nothing at all and families will have an increase in peace of mind. In the rare instances that a young person does get seriously sick this policy could make the difference between a life altering or even life ending experience and a quicker return to good health and the job market when conditions improve.
We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1742 at 09-09-2010 12:11 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
09-09-2010, 12:11 PM #1742
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.

James50
Not really a big deal then?

Regardless, why do you believe them? How do you know that the 1.5% is a result of this change in particular other than the insurance company telling you it is?







Post#1743 at 09-09-2010 12:59 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
09-09-2010, 12:59 PM #1743
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.
It's the *individual* health policies that are skyrocketing, a lot more so than employer group policies.

What's happening is that in the bad economy, a lot of healthy and young folks feeling the pinch in this depression are dropping their unsubsidized, full-price health insurance coverage because they can't afford it. The folks with health issues and preexisting conditions are finding ways to beg, borrow or steal in order to not let their policies lapse lest they become uninsurable in the future.

The result is a huge amount of "adverse selection" occurring in the individual market, where the remaining pool of insureds is (on average) getting older and sicker. Hence the 15%, 20% and even 30% increases I've seen. Without getting into the ideology of implementation details, this points out a glaring problem with a lack of universal coverage. It's not *all* because big insurance companies are pure evil. There are very real economic forces combining with a dysfunctional individual health insurance markets that are driving legitimately higher costs for individual plans.

This is not much of an issue in the highly subsidized employer group plans, as almost no one opts out of them (unless they have a spouse with better coverage).
Last edited by ziggyX65; 09-09-2010 at 01:07 PM.







Post#1744 at 09-09-2010 01:17 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-09-2010, 01:17 PM #1744
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
Not really a big deal then?

Regardless, why do you believe them? How do you know that the 1.5% is a result of this change in particular other than the insurance company telling you it is?
It was an exact quid pro quo. They said if you want to cover dependents until age 26, it will be 1.5% more. If you choose to wait until the policy renews when it becomes mandatory (in our case next May), then there will be no increase.

We chose to wait.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1745 at 09-09-2010 01:36 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
09-09-2010, 01:36 PM #1745
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
It was an exact quid pro quo. They said if you want to cover dependents until age 26, it will be 1.5% more. If you choose to wait until the policy renews when it becomes mandatory (in our case next May), then there will be no increase.

We chose to wait.

James50
Ah... That actually makes the point somewhat. Presumably companies that have employees with <26 year olds who would be helped by this might be more likely to make this selection. Thus the actual increase will likely be less than this, perhaps substantially.







Post#1746 at 09-09-2010 01:45 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-09-2010, 01:45 PM #1746
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
Ah... That actually makes the point somewhat. Presumably companies that have employees with <26 year olds who would be helped by this might be more likely to make this selection. Thus the actual increase will likely be less than this, perhaps substantially.
Actually, I was one of the ones that took a hit personally. My 21 year old graduated from college in June. I am paying his COBRA now at $267/mo. He finally got a job a few weeks ago, but it has no insurance. Its part of the umbilical cord along with paying for his car insurance. Now that he has an income, I am pushing for him to take over both.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1747 at 09-09-2010 02:02 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
09-09-2010, 02:02 PM #1747
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Actually, I was one of the ones that took a hit personally. My 21 year old graduated from college in June. I am paying his COBRA now at $267/mo. He finally got a job a few weeks ago, but it has no insurance. Its part of the umbilical cord along with paying for his car insurance. Now that he has an income, I am pushing for him to take over both.

James50
I agree that it would be good for young people to be completely on their own as soon as possible. I just think it often isn't realistic at the present moment.

I'd rather see a very slight increase in insurance rates for those who have it at work to cover young people who don't have insurance at their place of employment than many young people simply going without. Especially those like your son who obtained a college education and got a job. He's lucky to have (a) parent(s) who can afford and are willing to contribute to keeping him insured. Many aren't that lucky especially as parents often need to pay significant amounts for the college education that precedes this first job.







Post#1748 at 09-09-2010 02:17 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-09-2010, 02:17 PM #1748
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
I agree that it would be good for young people to be completely on their own as soon as possible. I just think it often isn't realistic at the present moment.

I'd rather see a very slight increase in insurance rates for those who have it at work to cover young people who don't have insurance at their place of employment than many young people simply going without. Especially those like your son who obtained a college education and got a job. He's lucky to have (a) parent(s) who can afford and are willing to contribute to keeping him insured. Many aren't that lucky especially as parents often need to pay significant amounts for the college education that precedes this first job.
At least I got him out of the house. Based on experiences within my family and others, this is an achievement in itself.

And I agree with you - this is one of the good parts of Obamacare.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1749 at 09-09-2010 02:27 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
09-09-2010, 02:27 PM #1749
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
Missing the point...

The point is not simply to decrease costs, but to make healthcare reasonably affordable to as many people as possible. Cost is only one of several problems that currently exists. Healthcare as a portion of gdp seems likely to increase at least in the short term as more people begin to take care of the health concerns. It isn't immediately clear to what extent that is a problem. Currently we have a labor glut; more people employed in the healthcare industry could ultimately be a good thing.

Further, we know some individuals will have to pay more for health care. For instance, healthy people who live in a non-community rating state are currently able to obtain a plan available only to healthy people and will likely pay more under the new system. However, they will have the security of knowing they will be able to purchase a plan at any time in their life, anywhere in the country regardless of their source of income or state of health at roughly the same cost (adjusted for age of course). Further, they now have the security of knowing the plan will not cease payments to to a lifetime limit. This is a significant improvement and will remove much of the fear and uncertainty from the healthcare system!
As a person with a pre-existing condition, the ability to buy into this plan is a farce. Currently, if you are without health insurance for 6 months you can buy insurance from a select few companies. Going without insurance for 6 months is an extremely risky propostion. One hospitalization can put you into bankruptcy. But, if you make it six months, then these shrewd con-people can charge you, especially if you are over 55, up to 50% more for insurance. For me to purchase insurance in six months, I would be paying almost $800 a month. And that's with high co-pays and a $6,000 max out of pocket expense, before insurance starts paying. Does this look like a good deal to those of you who say we got a win with this reform?
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1750 at 09-09-2010 02:40 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
09-09-2010, 02:40 PM #1750
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

[QUOTE=Xer H;325282]It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!
QUOTE]

This is all smoke and mirrors. It only looks like reform. But in reality, it is not even a baby step toward cutting costs.

ANd as far as insuring children and young adults on parent's coverage, that's not the great reform that some of us think. Those young adults that are now allowed on their parent's insurance, are considered the healthiest ages in the population. And insurance companies compile these statistics on a daily basis to know who and who is not at the most risk for illness. That's whay rates will continue to rasise for other ages. And when those of us who have group health insurance see our rates dramatically go up and our coverage go down, we can think the reform bill.

Everyone will be affected. Hold on to your bank account, because you are about to get robbed and more taken hostage by the insurance industry.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
-----------------------------------------