Health Care Law is a tax

Let people buy health insurance the same way they buy auto insurance- heck, I'd love it if I could lump home, auto, life, AND health care with the same company. Get rid of this BS with employers providing health insurance. This does two things- allows people to shop for the best insurance for them, and makes it easier to change jobs, since your health insurance is no longer part of your compensation package. Also levels the playing field, since it's mostly better paying jobs that include health insurance.

Yes, my employer now pays for my insurance. I still think this should change.

This is one idea- won't fix the whole problem, but I think it'd be a good start.

I think insurance is part of the problem. It's basically subsidized (insert the type of insurance it is). Lets take car insurance for an example. Let's say back in the day, people were ok spending $50 to replace blinker fluid that leaked out after an accident and mechanics were charging $50. Along comes insurance and at first lets say people paid $20 deductible, insurance pays $30 and the mechanic charges $50 still. People think they are getting a killer deal and are ecstatic with the deal. Over the years prices slowly rise because mechanics realize people are still willing to spend $50 for their services, but they can charge $100 because the rest is subsidized by insurance. Prices go up and up and the people that benefit are the mechanics and insurance.

Makes sense in my head...

Keven wrote: I think insurance is part of the problem. It's basically subsidized (insert the type of insurance it is). Lets take car insurance for an example. Let's say back in the day, people were ok spending $50 to replace blinker fluid that leaked out after an accident and mechanics were charging $50. Along comes insurance and at first lets say people paid $20 deductible, insurance pays $30 and the mechanic charges $50 still. People think they are getting a killer deal and are ecstatic with the deal. Over the years prices slowly rise because mechanics realize people are still willing to spend $50 for their services, but they can charge $100 because the rest is subsidized by insurance. Prices go up and up and the people that benefit are the mechanics and insurance. Makes sense in my head...

Insurance is part of the problem, but not necessarily for that reason. It's because it's not insurance anymore because that's what the consumer demands.

Posed this earlier, but somehow berkeleyed it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

Ranger50 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

mpolans wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

ddavidv wrote: How do we fix healthcare?

Tort reform. Make it so loser pays when these asshats sue a doctor. Do that and the doctors wont have to play the CYA game and order every test under the sun. Also get the government to pay its bills. Then get the insurance companies out of the market as much as possible. Where you keep it open up the markets to every one. When an illegal comes in for health care deport them right after its finished.

I don't have an answer, but this really screws over the poor and middle class. A Loser Pays system will mean that lawyers would no longer be willing to work on a contingency basis. This means that when a doctor actually does act negligently, only the rich will be able to afford the cost of filing a lawsuit and paying for the expert witnesses, etc.

Thats not true at all. You are saying that a person can't win at all unless they are rich and that is simply not rue.

That's not really what he's saying. He's saying that the rich would potentially be the only ones willing to take the gamble. I wouldn't be willing to take the gamble. I couldn't afford what would happen if i lost.

No loser pays system really gets to the real problem, ambulance chasing pond scum "attorneys". If someone knows they really don't have a chance in hell to win, the case doesn't see the light of day. But if there is a clear winable case of negilience, there should not be any lawyer that would not take the case. What it really does is gets rid of the McDonalds coffee cases and leaves the amputated wrong foot cases.

But that means the ambulance chasing blow it out of proportion lawyers won't be able to afford their Mercedes payments and we all know that is the foundation of our economy.

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so." Rand Paul tweet after the healthcare decision.

Otto Maddox wrote: “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so." Rand Paul tweet after the healthcare decision.

Actually....

5-4. Hardly decisive.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: Anything that is run by the government is open to abuse and scammers.

What's being run by the government? Medicaid and Medicare, sure... but that's not new.

The entire system is now under government control. HHS runs the show now from who has to pay to what care you get.

Nope. The only things that have changed is now the government is telling you that you have to buy insurance. There is no "public option," and even if there was, the very term "option" implies that you would have a choice to NOT take the government option. Yes, insurance companies are being regulated as to how much they should be paying out. WHO has to pay hasn't changed. What care you get has had regulations since day 1.

Who has to pay has changed. I now have to pay for something I didn't before. And many people will be getting their new "free" health insurance from the government. Look at the flow chart I posted. Government now runs healthcare top to bottom.

Remember the death panels Palin said something about then she was derided by people saying they weren't in there, turns out they were so they were taken out only to be added back in? Thats the type of stuff that this bill is filled with.

In reply to ThePhranc:

I now have to pay for something I didn't before. Yeah, because the rest of the country was your safety net before. You didn't pay for your health insurance. We did. Now you have to take a little personal responsibility and pay for it yourself.

ThePhranc wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: Anything that is run by the government is open to abuse and scammers.

What's being run by the government? Medicaid and Medicare, sure... but that's not new.

The entire system is now under government control. HHS runs the show now from who has to pay to what care you get.

Nope. The only things that have changed is now the government is telling you that you have to buy insurance. There is no "public option," and even if there was, the very term "option" implies that you would have a choice to NOT take the government option. Yes, insurance companies are being regulated as to how much they should be paying out. WHO has to pay hasn't changed. What care you get has had regulations since day 1.

Who has to pay has changed. I now have to pay for something I didn't before. And many people will be getting their new "free" health insurance from the government. Look at the flow chart I posted. Government now runs healthcare top to bottom. Remember the death panels Palin said something about then she was derided by people saying they weren't in there, turns out they were so they were taken out only to be added back in? Thats the type of stuff that this bill is filled with.

That's.... a rather extremist way of looking at it.

I don't agree with this law either, but saying "Government now runs healthcare top to bottom" is neither accurate nor logical.

Big difference between regulating and running.

Hence the phrase "I RUN THIS E36 M3," and not "I REGULATE THIS E36 M3."

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: I now have to pay for something I didn't before. Yeah, because the rest of the country was your safety net before. You didn't pay for your health insurance. We did. Now you have to take a little personal responsibility and pay for it yourself.

Bingo.

We were already paying for other people's health care. Nothing has changed.

For most people , nothing will change. Some people who couldnt get insurance, now can. Those that don't and can afford it, have to. That is the basic premiss of the whole law.

Ranger50 wrote: No loser pays system really gets to the real problem, ambulance chasing pond scum "attorneys". If someone knows they really don't have a chance in hell to win, the case doesn't see the light of day. But if there is a clear winable case of negilience, there should not be any lawyer that would not take the case. What it really does is gets rid of the McDonalds coffee cases and leaves the amputated wrong foot cases.

Loser pays gets rid of all malpractice suits by non-rich people. If you can't afford a $100,000+ legal bill (remember, you're paying the hospital's bills too) then you won't be able to get an attorney to represent you. Good cases are lost every day based solely upon the strength of the opposing side's attorneys.

Funny you use the McDonald's coffee case as an example of what you want to eliminate, when it was one of the more clear cut examples of negligence in recent history. McDonald's had been ordered repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee makers, and had been told that they were a serious injury in the waiting. They refused, reasoning that their customers preferred hotter coffee and the cost of paying out settlements would be less than the lost income due to cooler coffee. The jury decided to wake them up with a penalty that was equal to a day's coffee sales. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: I now have to pay for something I didn't before. Yeah, because the rest of the country was your safety net before. You didn't pay for your health insurance. We did. Now you have to take a little personal responsibility and pay for it yourself.

No it wasn't paid by the rest of the country. No one paid for my health insurance because I paid for my own health care ( the two aren't the same). I took pure responsibility by paying for my self. Insurance spreads the cost and makes a burden on others. Thats not personal responsibility.

Would like to try again or do the smart thing and slink away?

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: I now have to pay for something I didn't before. Yeah, because the rest of the country was your safety net before. You didn't pay for your health insurance. We did. Now you have to take a little personal responsibility and pay for it yourself.

Bingo. We were already paying for other people's health care. Nothing has changed.

Except I'm now being forced to pay even more of my money that I work hard for to cover the burdens imposed on my by other people by no choice of my own. And if I refuse I will be 'taxed' as a punishment.

In reply to ThePhranc:

Since you are completely self sufficient, I assume you have some sort of fund set aside with a couple million dollars in it in case you need a heart transplant, get cancer, etc.

In reply to ThePhranc:

And it sounds like you don't pay for your health care. If you are paying much less than the medicaid/private insurance reimbursement rate, you were taken on as a welfare case. And the rest of us make that up the difference for you.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: Since you are completely self sufficient, I assume you have some sort of fund set aside with a couple million dollars in it in case you need a heart transplant, get cancer, etc.

Or he is equipped to deal with the illness without being treated at all. My Dad does this. He socks away cash rather than buy insurance. If he ever came up against a cancer or whatever, he'd spend it. When it was gone, he'd be gone. If this was your choice, it's just been made illegal.

Nevermind how unconstitutional it is. These are all fine arguments for the health care stuff. If you want it, get it in writing in the constitution. Don't kid yourself thinking the supreme court gets to rewrite the constitution like they have - they mostly cited older cases in the briefing - read the constitution yourself, it's not very long and pretty easy to understand. This isn't in there. Want it in there? Put it in there. Then everything's fine.

In reply to tuna55:

I don't argue about constitutionality. I am not a lawyer or a consitutional scholar.

My office manager's kid did the self-pay thing - responsible guy - paying his own way. Right up to the day he crashed. So $1.3 million in medical bills later, he's alive and mostly functional - blind in one eye and cognitively not 100% with us - so he won't be back in heavy equipment operation, but he's a pretty good pet sitter if someone can give him a ride. I'm sure he'll get that bill taken care of asap.

Hospital/healthcare rates anticipate and budget for this kind of thing because it happens on a daily basis. It's built in to the rates - so yeah, we are paying for the the risk a lack of insurance puts the rest of the population at even if you're paying up at your doc's office - so far it's worked out for you and statistically, will probably continue to work out for you - right up until it doesn't. Can't tell you how many times I hear - old whatshisname was always healthy - never sick a day in their life until they got (insert malady of choice).

dculberson wrote: Loser pays gets rid of all malpractice suits by non-rich people. If you can't afford a $100,000+ legal bill (remember, you're paying the hospital's bills too) then you won't be able to get an attorney to represent you. Good cases are lost every day based solely upon the strength of the opposing side's attorneys.

Or cases are lost from weak, limp spaghetti wristed, absent minded, spineless attorneys people "hire" too.

dculberson wrote: Funny you use the McDonald's coffee case as an example of what you want to eliminate, when it was one of the more clear cut examples of negligence in recent history. McDonald's had been ordered repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee makers, and had been told that they were a serious injury in the waiting. They refused, reasoning that their customers preferred hotter coffee and the cost of paying out settlements would be less than the lost income due to cooler coffee. The jury decided to wake them up with a penalty that was equal to a day's coffee sales. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

There in is the rub, what do you picture in your mind when someone says, "coffee"? I pictured a steaming hot fresh cup of black water flavored from roasted coffee beans. IIRC, my buddy worked the breakfast line at the local McD's for 4 years including the time of the coffee case. He said policy was 130 degrees. I can get that kind of temperature out of my kitchen faucet. I don't agree with the predesence it set forth. I know the external physical risk factors I am getting into by drinking coffee, but to openly throw those risks to the wind and blame someone else when I fumble that cup and spill it doesn't mean I have the right to blame anyone else buy MY-berkeleyING-SELF!

Ranger50 wrote:

dculberson wrote: Loser pays gets rid of all malpractice suits by non-rich people. If you can't afford a $100,000+ legal bill (remember, you're paying the hospital's bills too) then you won't be able to get an attorney to represent you. Good cases are lost every day based solely upon the strength of the opposing side's attorneys.

Or cases are lost from weak, limp spaghetti wristed, absent minded, spineless attorneys people "hire" too.

dculberson wrote: Funny you use the McDonald's coffee case as an example of what you want to eliminate, when it was one of the more clear cut examples of negligence in recent history. McDonald's had been ordered repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee makers, and had been told that they were a serious injury in the waiting. They refused, reasoning that their customers preferred hotter coffee and the cost of paying out settlements would be less than the lost income due to cooler coffee. The jury decided to wake them up with a penalty that was equal to a day's coffee sales. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

There in is the rub, what do you picture in your mind when someone says, "coffee"? I pictured a steaming hot fresh cup of black water flavored from roasted coffee beans. IIRC, my buddy worked the breakfast line at the local McD's for 4 years including the time of the coffee case. He said policy was 130 degrees. I can get that kind of temperature out of my kitchen faucet. I don't agree with the predesence it set forth. I know the external physical risk factors I am getting into by drinking coffee, but to openly throw those risks to the wind and blame someone else when I fumble that cup and spill it doesn't mean I have the right to blame anyone else buy MY-berkeleyING-SELF!

Thank you, never were truer words said, do you sue Mom when you spill your supper on your clumsy arse

Ranger50 wrote: There in is the rub, what do you picture in your mind when someone says, "coffee"? I pictured a steaming hot fresh cup of black water flavored from roasted coffee beans. IIRC, my buddy worked the breakfast line at the local McD's for 4 years including the time of the coffee case. He said policy was 130 degrees. I can get that kind of temperature out of my kitchen faucet. I don't agree with the predesence it set forth. I know the external physical risk factors I am getting into by drinking coffee, but to openly throw those risks to the wind and blame someone else when I fumble that cup and spill it doesn't mean I have the right to blame anyone else buy MY-berkeleyING-SELF!

Except your friend is either remembering it incorrectly or lying. If you read about the case, not just what was on the news and available from anecdotes, you would find out facts that were laid out in the trial, not conjecture. One choice tidbit:

"During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds."

180 - 190 degrees is a long berkeleying way from 130. And it's irresponsible and dangerous. And McDonalds, both the local restaurant and the chain, were warned and cited by the health department for it, but they chose not to lower the temperature. So when their reckless and irresponsible acts caught up with them, they paid the price. Well, more specifically, someone's grandmother paid the price and they then fought tooth and nail against being held responsible for her suffering.

Nothing in life is as simple as it seems at first blush, is it...

In reply to dculberson:

195 is brewing temperature, so 180-190 is damn close. That is like coffee shooting out of your coffee maker right onto your crotch. That doesn't sound reasonable.

That case souinded so fun at first, you know, to show how screwed up our legal system is. But when you read the details, it takes all the fun out of it.