DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US Health Reform
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 425, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/24/2010 02:34:59 PM · #226
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

What about your regular average American, upper middle-income, with kids, insured currently thru work?

You'd still be insured through work, same as now. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014.


Are you saying the cost to the employer will be lowered by this percentage?
03/24/2010 02:39:46 PM · #227
Caterpillar says their cost will increase by 100 mil. the first year because of this bill. They employ a number of folks in the US. What do you think will happen?
03/24/2010 02:59:58 PM · #228
Originally posted by David Ey:

Caterpillar says their cost will increase by 100 mil. the first year because of this bill. They employ a number of folks in the US. What do you think will happen?

Cut the benefits available, or pass the added expense along to the employees.

That's what I foresee coming...
03/24/2010 03:17:43 PM · #229
One of my wife's friends works as a billing coordinator for the local hospital (actually I should say worked she retired six months ago). She like many people doesn't care for the bill that passed, but she describes it as an incomplete step in the right direction. One of her jobs was to determine the cost of new services. Five years ago my wife had her Gall Bladder removed- the total cost was $45,000 from the hospital and $12,000 from the surgeon. My wife did not have insurance. We are still paying this today. Her friend tells us that the surgery costs are about 300 percent of what they "should be." Rolled into that cost is an expectation that about 1/3 of the people having the procedure will not be able to pay any of it, 1/3 of the people will have insurance that covers the majority of the cost, but the hospital will never see any of the billing that insurance does not cover and 1/6 of the people will have insurance and be able to cover the amount the insurance doesn't pay and 1/6 will pay over time and the hospital will recover "most" of the actual expenses. She's worked in five or six hospitals (including public and private in Chicago, Atlanta, Kansas City) over the past 20 years and said the percentages vary based on region, but they all have the general idea.

The aspect of the bill she does like is the mandatory coverage, which she admits is a very imperfect solution. But she also looks at it as a way to start to push hospital/medical expenses down. If hospitals and doctors are more assured of receiving a higher percentage of what they bill there won't be as much need to compensate for those that are unable to pay. Will it work- who knows? But if medical costs go down, shouldn't the cost of insurance go down? This is the first year that my wife and I were eligiable for my companies health insurance plan. We pay $697 per month for health, dental and eye care. The company picks up another $957 per month of the insurance tab. $1,654 per month to insure two people- if we had a child under age 18 it would add $357 dollars more per month to our bill and $157 to the companies tab.

My mother tells me she remembers when she was a child how people called FDR a communist and a socialist and attacked many of his policies with a violent fervor. Look at what happens now when a politician even suggests doing away with social security. Maybe in 60 years we'll be in the same position with health care.
03/24/2010 03:31:07 PM · #230
Originally posted by dponlyme:


How bout we get back to talking about how this health-care bill allows for government sanctioned abortion. A procedure which results in the death of unborn children. Now I will have to pay for these women to kill their own children, who were and are irresponsible with their own bodies. This is a complete violation of my rights as a human being. My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. It may not violate the laws of man in this country but it is the law of the God that created me that I seek to uphold in my own conscience. This Health-care bill should be repealed for this reason alone and yet there are so many more reasons.


If you have health care insurance currently, where the risk is spread out among everyone paying into the system, chances are that your premiums are already being used to pay for this very same procedure. So what's your point? That it will be government sanctioned? Our legal system has already said that it's not murder under current law.
03/24/2010 03:40:19 PM · #231
Originally posted by David Ey:

Caterpillar says their cost will increase by 100 mil. the first year because of this bill.

Riiiight... that explains their stock rising when the bill was passed and then rising again when it was signed into law. Their shareholders obviously aren't sensing hardship.
03/24/2010 03:53:58 PM · #232
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Caterpillar says their cost will increase by 100 mil. the first year because of this bill.

Riiiight... that explains their stock rising when the bill was passed and then rising again when it was signed into law. Their shareholders obviously aren't sensing hardship.

Well, the shareholders aren't the ones that will feel the pain of an increase in healthcare costs, especially if the costs are controlled by 1) changing employee benefit packages to something with less coverage and lower costs, or 2) charging employees more for their insurance plan.

As for Caterpillar stock rising, it only took a minute to read current headlines and forecasts (based on anticipated long-term construction growth/turnaround) to see why shareholders aren't too worried.

Caterpillar rises on long-term potential
Why You Need to Own Caterpillar Shares
03/24/2010 03:54:44 PM · #233
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/61961/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_862937.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/61961/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_862937.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/24/2010 04:03:03 PM · #234
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Well, the shareholders aren't the ones that will feel the pain of an increase in healthcare costs, especially if the costs are controlled by 1) changing employee benefit packages to something with less coverage and lower costs, or 2) charging employees more for their insurance plan.

Yep, and Caterpillar does that all by itself. The company added $75 to its bottom line in 2002 by cutting benefits and increasing employee premiums. It cut retiree benefits in 1992 to add $1.5 billion to its balance sheet. Guess who picks up the bill on healthcare when the company cuts benefits?
03/24/2010 04:11:35 PM · #235
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Well, the shareholders aren't the ones that will feel the pain of an increase in healthcare costs, especially if the costs are controlled by 1) changing employee benefit packages to something with less coverage and lower costs, or 2) charging employees more for their insurance plan.

Yep, and Caterpillar does that all by itself. The company added $75 to its bottom line in 2002 by cutting benefits and increasing employee premiums. It cut retiree benefits in 1992 to add $1.5 billion to its balance sheet. Guess who picks up the bill on healthcare when the company cuts benefits?

Ok - I can concede that point to you. :-}
03/24/2010 04:28:50 PM · #236
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Well, the shareholders aren't the ones that will feel the pain of an increase in healthcare costs, especially if the costs are controlled by 1) changing employee benefit packages to something with less coverage and lower costs, or 2) charging employees more for their insurance plan.

Yep, and Caterpillar does that all by itself. The company added $75 to its bottom line in 2002 by cutting benefits and increasing employee premiums. It cut retiree benefits in 1992 to add $1.5 billion to its balance sheet. Guess who picks up the bill on healthcare when the company cuts benefits?

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', '/') + 1) . ' scalvert you sound like your up to date on healthcare reform law. Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.
03/24/2010 04:46:59 PM · #237
Originally posted by SDW:

Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.

Not until 2014, unfortunately. It'll take a while to set up the exchanges.
03/24/2010 04:51:21 PM · #238
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.

Not until 2014, unfortunately. It'll take a while to set up the exchanges.

So four years of taxes before any benefit.
03/24/2010 05:45:25 PM · #239
Originally posted by SDW:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.

Not until 2014, unfortunately. It'll take a while to set up the exchanges.

So four years of taxes before any benefit.

What taxes? Unless you use a tanning bed or make more than $200,000, what are you talking about?

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 17:46:20.
03/24/2010 07:11:42 PM · #240
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.

Not until 2014, unfortunately. It'll take a while to set up the exchanges.

So four years of taxes before any benefit.

What taxes? Unless you use a tanning bed or make more than $200,000, what are you talking about?

I hope you don't think I'm trying to be sarcastic in any way because I'm not. I'm just wondering what this bill does for people like me now. It seems to do nothing unless they expand the medicaid poverty level to say 200% the federal poverty line. I don't want nothing for free but need insurance for my family and I. When my wife was employed we had BCBS PPO and it cost $290 /mo. for a plan for family coverage. Considering most of our meds were only $5 each and most doctor visits were $15 co-pay. It was not a bad deal. I could see a doctor the same day and I was never denied a test or coverage.

I'm keeping an open mind about the healthcare law but honestly don't know how the US is going to afford it. And how doctors are going to be able to take a cut in medicare pay. I know that some doctors here have stopped taking new medicare patients and some doctors have stopped accepting medicare at all.
03/24/2010 07:16:56 PM · #241
This article answers a bunch of questions... link
03/24/2010 07:36:43 PM · #242
Well, it 'may' answer some of the questions but it don't answer this. I heard those lying slob's tell us we would have the same coverage as they.

//www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36174

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 19:58:48.
03/24/2010 07:48:48 PM · #243
Originally posted by SDW:

I'm just wondering what this bill does for people like me now.

Maybe nothing right away, but I'm not sure that would even be realistically possible. Any large change takes time to implement. What the new law does and when.

Originally posted by SDW:

I'm keeping an open mind about the healthcare law but honestly don't know how the US is going to afford it. And how doctors are going to be able to take a cut in medicare pay. I know that some doctors here have stopped taking new medicare patients and some doctors have stopped accepting medicare at all.

Ask yourself how the U.S. could afford INaction? Our costs are already the highest in the world and have continued to rise with no end in sight. Doctors have been turning away patients for years, not just due to costs, but also because of complicated paperwork (which this may help reduce through standardizations and pooling) and fewer doctors for more people. The gloomsday crowd claims that this will drive even more doctors away, but where there's a need people will fill it. Job markets tend to take care of that.
03/24/2010 08:46:21 PM · #244
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SDW:

Tell me when I can sign my family up for insurance since we don't have any and we now fall below the federal poverty line.

Not until 2014, unfortunately. It'll take a while to set up the exchanges.

So four years of taxes before any benefit.

What taxes? Unless you use a tanning bed or make more than $200,000, what are you talking about?


Yes, 4 years of taxes before any real benefits. But yes, we only tax the rich people so we can take more from the haves and give it to the have nots. Of course most know the haves really don't pay taxes. business owners raise prices and/or lay people off, they will have one gardner instead of two, others donate less money, at the end of the day they still get their's and we'll pay for it.

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 20:47:29.
03/24/2010 08:57:16 PM · #245
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Caterpillar says their cost will increase by 100 mil. the first year because of this bill.

Riiiight... that explains their stock rising when the bill was passed and then rising again when it was signed into law. Their shareholders obviously aren't sensing hardship.


Really, you think their stock went up or down based on healthcare? WOW!

Probably had nothing to do with this, huh?
Wells Fargo Maintains Outperform Rating on Caterpillar, Raises Valuation Range, and stuff

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 20:57:59.
03/24/2010 09:17:34 PM · #246
Originally posted by scalvert:


Originally posted by cowboy221977:

It is unconstitutional. (It requires individuals or companies to purchase insurance) According to the "constitution" it is not legal for the govmt to force citizens to pay for a service that is "unnecessary."

You're already required to have car insurance. How is insuring your own health less necessary?


I inteneded to reply to this gem way back, but I've been busy at work...

So you choose to drive knowing that car insurance is required as a condition of owning a car. I'm not required to have car insurance! You can walk, or take a bike, or bus, train, rent a car, zip car (do they require personal insurance?) there are lots of alternatives to owning a car.

What are my alternatives to having to buy health insurance? Quiting my job and going on medicaide, getting old and going on medicare, or death?
03/24/2010 09:31:51 PM · #247
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:


Originally posted by cowboy221977:

It is unconstitutional. (It requires individuals or companies to purchase insurance) According to the "constitution" it is not legal for the govmt to force citizens to pay for a service that is "unnecessary."

You're already required to have car insurance. How is insuring your own health less necessary?


I inteneded to reply to this gem way back, but I've been busy at work...

So you choose to drive knowing that car insurance is required as a condition of owning a car. I'm not required to have car insurance! You can walk, or take a bike, or bus, train, rent a car, zip car (do they require personal insurance?) there are lots of alternatives to owning a car.

What are my alternatives to having to buy health insurance? Quiting my job and going on medicaide, getting old and going on medicare, or death?


Let's go with the premise that health insurance is unnessary and it's allowed not to have it and you choose not to get it.

Let's say you get diagnosed with some disease for which the cost of treatment is more than what you can afford. Just for argument sake, it's not debilitating enough, so you keep working and you don't qualify as low income. Do you forego treatment because you can't afford it?

Insurance is only unnecessary if you can afford to pay for any situation that comes up without it. Most people don't have that luxury.

ETA:

What's the cost to the system if you forego treatment and eventually end up in emergency because you couldn't afford to take preventative measures?

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 21:34:12.
03/24/2010 10:40:06 PM · #248
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Insurance is only unnecessary if you can afford to pay for any situation that comes up without it. Most people don't have that luxury.


What if I'm willing to take the risk to let medical debt pile up if I get sick in return for the thousands I save if I don't get sick? It's a gamble some take.

Just because you say it's necessary doesn't make it so.
03/24/2010 11:06:40 PM · #249
education isn't necessary either, but it sure does a lot for the quality of life of the people in countries where minimum standards of publicly funded education are kept -- and even more for those countries where post-secondary is also free.
03/24/2010 11:12:20 PM · #250
Originally posted by LoudDog:

What if I'm willing to take the risk to let medical debt pile up if I get sick in return for the thousands I save if I don't get sick? It's a gamble some take.

Maybe you're willing to risk not wearing a seatbelt, crossing a railroad when the gates are down, trying cocaine, taking counterfeit prescription drugs, or wiping out your 401k account early. Where practical, governments have some duty to protect citizens from their own lousy choices, too (especially when the potential consequences pose an even greater burden to others). Some people are willing to gamble their lives with smoking. As with smoking, you'll still have the option, but pay a similar tax designed to discourage the poor decision. The annual tax (starting in 2014 at $95) will be less than even a single month of insurance premiums, so spare us the whining.

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 23:13:36.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 05:16:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 05:16:31 AM EDT.