And it begins.

**Fovezer** · 10-26-12, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Well, my 401k isn't limited to one company. Any company I go to can pay into it, if they offer it. Yet, the government doesn't own that 401k. Why can't there be privatized insurance carriers that any employer could pay into, yet are still not government owned, or government enforced, and still allow people to make conscientiousness decisions concerning their healthcare no matter who they worked for?

Then its all on the companies shoulders as to which plans they will pay for. If they won't pay for a plan, then that individual has to decide if they still want to work that for that company. That satisfies your stated arguments, as well as mine.

It doesn't satisfy my arguments because you just said you'd be ok with forcing people to make employment decisions based on health insurance, and I think that is a terrible idea. It's a major reason why I support a single-payer system. And insurance plans are far, far different than 401ks because every plan from every company is different. Contribution levels may vary from company to company, but insurance plans vary far more than that.

In short, I see absolutely no reason to have health insurance be a for-profit business. None. It just makes everything far more expensive for everyone and leads to less coverage and inadequate coverage.

**AetheLove** · 10-26-12, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I support a system where companies have a plethora of insuring options, just like any market. It would be a market based solution. If an insurance company doesn't have a plan to cover contraceptives, or the pill, or whatever, then they would be losing business because employers would be looking for coverage plans which included that.

That's the power of the free market.

If your product is inferior, your business will, and should, die to make way for the one which meets the needs. Employers who ignore the needs of their employees won't be in business for long. You could make a strong argument for that concerning Hobby Lobby, and I think that would be a better angle in this case.

Anyway... competition is the BEST way to make sure the price is low, and product is as good as it can be.

Health insurance (and health provision generally) isn't just like any other market. There are some things - I would say most things - that work fine in a broadly unregulated market.

There are also things which don't. Some things fail utterly in a market system. Other things can work ok in a constrained (regulated) market. I like to think that health care can be something which can work in a hybrid system.

I like that "markets" get a lot of political support. I think they're great (also unavoidable). But the extent to which the Market Mantra has taken on religious aspects (it's BETTER because IT IS) scares the living shit out of me.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**deathgodusmc** · 10-26-12, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Probably true in the case of Hobby Lobby, but this has class action written all over it. It'll become a principle thing every business will point to if its upheld.

I completely agree. I even remember mcdonalds trying to sue this healthcare deal right after it past. My money is on many businesses will be filing there own as well.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-26-12, 05:39 PM

What would get real interesting to me is if businesses and states start filing together. What will the fed do at that point?

**Fovezer** · 10-26-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

It most certainly is fact. Name one insurance made mandatory that went down after the government took it upon themselves to make it that way.

Massachusetts.

"The cost of insurance, also due to a number of other insurance reforms, dropped dramatically, from $8,567 in 2006 to $5,143 the year after the Massachusetts law took effect."
Health reform with a mandate: the Massachusetts story - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

But your ok with the employees telling the companies what treatments they will provide. Bullshit.

I'm absolutely ok with the government setting a minimum standards for coverage. Isn't it funny that no one is arguing about Viagra and Cialis being covered by these plans, but birth control for women? Oh, fuck no!

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You think it did? You can bet your ass some companies will be dropping insurance programs and paying the fines. The fines are cheaper for the company then the insurance policy is. On top of that this did this without regulation to insurance companies. The prices will go up. Everyone will now be covered and the prices of health care will also go up. Before some of the checks and balances was the fact they were not going to get paid. Now they're like the oil companies. They will get paid and start making record profits.

This did not make anything better. Its a step backwards.

So all you got is speculation? Cool. But I'd fully support putting all for-profit health insurance companies out of business if it meant a national health insurance plan, then we don't have to worry about their costs going up or record profits.

**Ranger10** · 10-26-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

It doesn't satisfy my arguments because you just said you'd be ok with forcing people to make employment decisions based on health insurance, and I think that is a terrible idea. It's a major reason why I support a single-payer system. And insurance plans are far, far different than 401ks because every plan from every company is different. Contribution levels may vary from company to company, but insurance plans vary far more than that.

In short, I see absolutely no reason to have health insurance be a for-profit business. None. It just makes everything far more expensive for everyone and leads to less coverage and inadequate coverage.

You make it a for profit business, because if you don't then the insurance companies get to dictate to your doctor which treatments they will pay for and which ones they won't. If there is no competition, then you have no way of telling your insurance company to "go fuck themselves" when they don't want to pay for something. You are stuck with what you're stuck with.

My girlfriend is an emergency room nurse. She has countless stories about how medicare won't cover certain treatments because they are more expensive than another solution that Medicare will pay for, even though the doctor KNOWS the first treatment will save that persons life. It's a dollars and cents issue.

Now... if the insurance is private, then that company is in business to make money, NOT provide coverage. They want as many people choosing their insurance over another. So they offer promotions, introductory offers, long term customer benefits to keep them. And if they decide NOT to cover something, they can look at see how many people leave them.

The government doesn't build its own planes. It shops around for the best deal from Lockheed Martin or Boeing.

The government doesn't build its own roads. It shops around for private companies and hires them to build them.

The government doesn't build its own buildings. It hires private construction firms to build it for them.

Why would we want the government providing its own insurance? Why?

**deathgodusmc** · 10-26-12, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Massachusetts.

"The cost of insurance, also due to a number of other insurance reforms, dropped dramatically, from $8,567 in 2006 to $5,143 the year after the Massachusetts law took effect."
Health reform with a mandate: the Massachusetts story - The Washington Post

From your link. Oddly enough the exact same scenario the federal government just did with obamacare. So your proof actually isn't proof of anything other then im right and the passed a new law to correct it.

"Massachusetts has long tended to have higher health care costs than other areas of the country. But a series of changes passed in 1996 also contributed to the rising price of insurance premiums. The measures required insurance companies to accept all customers, regardless of any pre-existing conditions and limited how much sicker customers could be charged."

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I'm absolutely ok with the government setting a minimum standards for coverage. Isn't it funny that no one is arguing about Viagra and Cialis being covered by these plans, but birth control for women? Oh, fuck no!

Start your cry and i'll join you. Companies shouldn't have to make sure you can get it up either.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

So all you got is speculation? Cool. But I'd fully support putting all for-profit health insurance companies out of business if it meant a national health insurance plan, then we don't have to worry about their costs going up or record profits.

If its done correctly we could have both but they are going to have to have caps in place for treatments. No $500 band aids in other words. You cant pass everyone must buy insurance without putting blocks in place for everyone getting fucked like we did every other time.

**Fovezer** · 10-26-12, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You make it a for profit business, because if you don't then the insurance companies get to dictate to your doctor which treatments they will pay for and which ones they won't. If there is no competition, then you have no way of telling your insurance company to "go fuck themselves" when they don't want to pay for something. You are stuck with what you're stuck with.

Sorry to break it to you, but this already happens. A lot. Look at HMO's and other plans that force you to go to a doctor in their network or they won't cover it or charge you a lot more. They already dictate what they will cover, what percentage, and at which facilities you can have tests and other things done at. Everything you just said here already happens, and it costs us twice as much as other countries.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

My girlfriend is an emergency room nurse. She has countless stories about how medicare won't cover certain treatments because they are more expensive than another solution that Medicare will pay for, even though the doctor KNOWS the first treatment will save that persons life. It's a dollars and cents issue.

I can tell you the same, exact stories from private insurers. I'd absolutely support giving doctors more leeway when it comes to covering treatments they feel are necessary.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Now... if the insurance is private, then that company is in business to make money, NOT provide coverage. They want as many people choosing their insurance over another. So they offer promotions, introductory offers, long term customer benefits to keep them. And if they decide NOT to cover something, they can look at see how many people leave them.

Then it's pointless and has no use. Because the point of business is to provide a product at the lowest cost possible while making the most money off it. That means making it more difficult to get coverage while jacking up rates. Profit margins also take away from money that could be spent providing more coverage. If insurance companies provided anything of actual value instead of being just money pools that skim a healthy chunk off the top I might agree with you, but they don't. They fight paying everything as it is.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

The government doesn't build its own planes. It shops around for the best deal from Lockheed Martin or Boeing.

The government doesn't build its own roads. It shops around for private companies and hires them to build them.

The government doesn't build its own buildings. It hires private construction firms to build it for them.

Why would we want the government providing its own insurance? Why?

We already have it in Medicare and it would be far cheaper to cut out profit margins for something that doesn't need a competitive market to be successful. To extremely simplify it, all they do is pool money and pay out claims. There just has never been one good, persuasive argument I have ever heard to maintain the for-profit health insurance scam we have now.

**Fovezer** · 10-26-12, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

From your link. Oddly enough the exact same scenario the federal government just did with obamacare. So your proof actually isn't proof of anything other then im right and the passed a new law to correct it.

"Massachusetts has long tended to have higher health care costs than other areas of the country. But a series of changes passed in 1996 also contributed to the rising price of insurance premiums. The measures required insurance companies to accept all customers, regardless of any pre-existing conditions and limited how much sicker customers could be charged."

And that was because there wasn't a mandate to go along with it. You can't force companies to take on the sicker patients without offsetting it with healthier patients. That's what the mandate does.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Start your cry and i'll join you. Companies shouldn't have to make sure you can get it up either.

Lol.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

If its done correctly we could have both but they are going to have to have caps in place for treatments. No $500 band aids in other words. You cant pass everyone must buy insurance without putting blocks in place for everyone getting fucked like we did every other time.

The "$500 bandaid" thing is because they want to get the maximum payout from insurance companies, which don't actually pay that total amount. But I'd have no problem discussing ways we could go about trying to get costs for things to come down because I do agree there is a lot of overcharging going on.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-26-12, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

And that was because there wasn't a mandate to go along with it. You can't force companies to take on the sicker patients without offsetting it with healthier patients. That's what the mandate does.

Even if it is that simple (which it isn't) they is still a huge flaw. Their rates dropped due to subsides they received from the government. I didnt see that in obamacare did you? Without that health insurance will do the same thing auto insurance did, workers comp insurance did, and business insurances did. None of which dropped in price.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The "$500 bandaid" thing is because they want to get the maximum payout from insurance companies, which don't actually pay that total amount. But I'd have no problem discussing ways we could go about trying to get costs for things to come down because I do agree there is a lot of overcharging going on.

See but they do get the pay out. What insurance companies dont cover the hospital will send you the bill for. Of which can not be removed by a bankruptcy. Another thing the fed did to help them get paid.