| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Padraic 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
 Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:04 |
 Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Some quick googling reveals that the IRS can garnish wages, etc., but it does look like no one will be imprisoned for failing to pay.
|
I have no wages to speak of, so jokes on them.
|
Asking only workmen's wages, I come looking for a job, but I get no offers....
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:06 |
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Some quick googling reveals that the IRS can garnish wages, etc., but it does look like no one will be imprisoned for failing to pay.
|
I have no wages to speak of, so jokes on them.
|
Asking only workmen's wages, I come looking for a job, but I get no offers....
|
Well Li la li la li la li la la la la li.
|
|
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:10 |
Padraic wrote:
Some quick googling reveals that the IRS can garnish wages, etc., but it does look like no one will be imprisoned for failing to pay. |
Yeah, that's how it'll go. No real crime committed, but we regret to inform you that we're going to have to garnish some wages there, big guy. What, no wages? No problem, we'll just garnish your unemployment benefits. What, no unemployment benefits? No problem, we'll just put a lien on your property. We've got the process down. Just a few forms to fill out and it'll all be painless.
Understand, I'm no right-winger and half of why I say I don't actually believe. I'm actually glad this thing passed, as I believe it is prerequisite to true health care reform in the good ol' USA.
I'm filling out my census form.
Here's what we have:
Three adults living in the house, two of which have jobs and health insurance, one of which is unemployed and has no income and is currently living off the relatively good fortune of his parents. So for my son, what's to garnish?
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10680
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:10 |
|
I'm glad the government is sending people to jail for this, I think they deserve it.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:12 |
To folks on the many sides of this issue. How do each of us propose to get health care paid for in this country?
Hopefully that's a neutral question.
Here's some others that some may find more or less neutral.
1. Is the current system of ERs and hospitals being forced to give free care in case of life-threatening emergencies an acceptable minimum care standard? If so, is this financially very efficient?
2. Do you agree with using an insurance model?
3. Should the basis of health care rely primarily on the employer and employee? Does having the manager of funds (insurer), the purchaser of product (the employer) and the receiver of services (employee) all being different allow market forces to work to correct for inefficient low quality product?
I'll start there and see how many bite on the details.
Edited by Negoba - March 24 2010 at 22:14
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:25 |
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things. 2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important. 3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance. 4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs. 5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks. 6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace. 7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:26 |
Hopefully these answers aren't too short, but they can kick off dialogue.
Negoba wrote:
To folks on the many sides of this issue. How do each of us propose to get health care paid for in this country? It seems to me you can't escape an "insurance" mentality - and by that I mean something going terribly wrong with you, if you're relatively young, is a low probability, high cost event. Inevitably, as much as no one likes to discuss it, the cost problems are almost all involved with the end of one's life, where the high cost care is no longer low probability and indeed approaches certainty. But what you're probably getting at is who should manage the pooled resources - private enterprise or the government? The rest of the world will answer "government" and wonder why Americans even hesitate with the answer - and yet I'm not going to commit to an answer just yet.
Hopefully that's a neutral question.
Here's some others that some may find more or less neutral.
1. Is the current system of ERs and hospitals being forced to give free care in case of life-threatening emergencies an acceptable minimum care standard? From a cost and resource perspective, certainly not. If so, is this financially very efficient? Nope.
2. Do you agree with using an insurance model? See above
3. Should the basis of health care rely primarily on the employer and employee?
No, this is an outdated modality in my opinion.
Does having the manager of funds (insurer), the purchaser of product (the employer) and the receiver of services (employee) allow market forces to work to correct for inefficient low quality product? It's always dreadfully inefficient when you receive services but don't concern yourself with the cost. I recall when my infant son was terribly sick with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a 24 hour stint at the local hospital (before being transferred to an ICU at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) cost $11,000. In a normal consumer relationship I would have questioned some of the charges, but as the bill was paid in full I basically ignored it.
I'll start there and see how many bite on the details. |
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:34 |
Qboyy007 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
So I'm watching Countdown With Keith Olberman (on personal leave his Dad just died). Barney Frank was just on to discuss all the threats that some Representatives and Senators are getting for voting for health reform. He said the doesn't get many death threats, mostly after death threats.
If you haven't been following the news the teabaggers have become really sore losers.
The Dems in the Senate have been smacking down Reps attempts at final derailment of reconciliation through amendment abuse.
Fox Noise, which spent so much time and effort smearing the legislation could only be bothered with a few seconds of coverage for the Presidential signing.
As people are getting the facts about what is actually in the legislation, public approval ratings are going up.
|
Watching MSNC and saying Fox News is bad makes you just as stupid as them. |
Not being able to make ONE comment without insults and with at least ONE idea makes you... a genius? An example?
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:42 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things.
I must admit I don't understand why this is regulated now. Is there a function to this restriction even a profit driven one?
2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important.
Defensive medicine is where the actual costs associated with lawsuits are the highest. I agree it is one important piece.
3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance.
Again I admit ignorance on this. What tax penalties are there? But another point is self-insured entities often don't get the negotiated rates that govern how money actually flows from insurers to hospitals, etc. Negotiated price based on volume is a mainstay of free market economics, but causes some obvious nastines in health care.
4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs.
I understand the idea here, but allowing unregulated folks to perform surgery is a little scary. I happened to have to work with a poorly trained older physician acting as a surgeon who got grandfathered in and whose techniques were crazy terrible. He was a good salesman, though, and many of his patients didn't know the difference. This differential in knowledge makes it very difficult for the consumers of health care make the kind of decisions that make for good free market economics.
5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks.
Including personal accountability is a great goal. Not sure if it could go this far though. Have to think on it.
6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace.
The knowledge differential comes into play here again, but the current FDA is doing a terrible job. This is a subject that could take up a book on its own.
7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare.
I like this idea, but it would require a big change in how things are currently priced.
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:48 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things. 2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important. 3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance. 4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs. 5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks. 6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace. 7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare. |
While all of this sounds ok, assuming the model to follow is an insurance, for-profit one (which I guess, sadly -in my view- it's the logical for the American view of things), do you agree with some regulation as in, for example, denying insurance for pre-existing conditions? And if you don't consider any kind of regulation acceptable, what is an alternative that this market would create for people who fall in that category (sick people, the ones who need health services the most)?
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 22:51 |
Padraic wrote:
Hopefully these answers aren't too short, but they can kick off dialogue.
Negoba wrote:
To folks on the many sides of this issue. How do each of us propose to get health care paid for in this country?
It seems to me you can't escape an "insurance" mentality - and by that I mean something going terribly wrong with you, if you're relatively young, is a low probability, high cost event. Inevitably, as much as no one likes to discuss it, the cost problems are almost all involved with the end of one's life, where the high cost care is no longer low probability and indeed approaches certainty.
Health care involves multiple draws on the pool. Catastrophic type draws will always occur and an insurance model makes sense. But especially as we age, all people are likely to need some medical care and preventative care. Paying for mammograms and colonoscopies doesn't fall under an insurance model very well. End of life care and care for chronic medical problems also don't fit very well either. What do we do with the 55 year old guy who has a heart attack, gets a bypass, needs alot of medicine, but is then able to be back in the workforce, but at much higher health care cost?
But what you're probably getting at is who should manage the pooled resources - private enterprise or the government? The rest of the world will answer "government" and wonder why Americans even hesitate with the answer - and yet I'm not going to commit to an answer just yet.
The thing I've been thinking to myself all along in the last year is that the American people want the manager to be a private entity but don't like the insurance model. What's the alternative? HMOs were one, and the American public hated that. I'm not sure what that private entity would look like.
Hopefully that's a neutral question.
Here's some others that some may find more or less neutral.
1. Is the current system of ERs and hospitals being forced to give free care in case of life-threatening emergencies an acceptable minimum care standard? From a cost and resource perspective, certainly not. If so, is this financially very efficient? Nope.
I also think it's not a ethically acceptable minimum, but that is of course one of the points under debate.
2. Do you agree with using an insurance model?
See above Likewise
3. Should the basis of health care rely primarily on the employer and employee?
No, this is an outdated modality in my opinion. I agree with you (obviously from my choice of question)
Does having the manager of funds (insurer), the purchaser of product (the employer) and the receiver of services (employee) allow market forces to work to correct for inefficient low quality product?
It's always dreadfully inefficient when you receive services but don't concern yourself with the cost. I recall when my infant son was terribly sick with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a 24 hour stint at the local hospital (before being transferred to an ICU at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) cost $11,000. In a normal consumer relationship I would have questioned some of the charges, but as the bill was paid in full I basically ignored it.
I see this disconnect as one of the biggest problems with the healthcare system.
I'll start there and see how many bite on the details. |
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:00 |
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things.
2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important.
3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance.
4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs.
5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks.
6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace.
7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare. |
While all of this sounds ok, assuming the model to follow is an insurance, for-profit one (which I guess, sadly -in my view- it's the logical for the American view of things), do you agree with some regulation as in, for example, denying insurance for pre-existing conditions? And if you don't consider any kind of regulation acceptable, what is an alternative that this market would create for people who fall in that category (sick people, the ones who need health services the most)? |
Staying under an insurance model and then saying you can't choose who to insure is one of the wierdest ideas ever. But yet it's part of the system both before and after the reform bill. The market, like natural selection, works when non-viable entities die off.
The libertarian ideal, I think, is that those in need can be cared for only by the voluntary giving of those with resources. Forcing anyone to give up their resources involuntarily is essentially unacceptable.
I disagree with these ideas, but I am working as hard as I can to understand them.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:03 |
|
How does a colonoscopy not fall under the insurance model? Has anyone had one of those lately? My wife has, just last summer, and actually I'm overdue for one, or so my doc says. Does anyone know what these cost? Not much, only 2-3 months worth of yer average paraeducator salary. Better buy a refrigerator while you're at it, so you'll have a box to live in...put it up over that grate downtown. Maybe we need to make these types of what are essentially diagnostics opt-in, in which case the rich live and the poor die, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:28 |
jammun wrote:
How does a colonoscopy not fall under the insurance model? Has anyone had one of those lately? My wife has, just last summer, and actually I'm overdue for one, or so my doc says. Does anyone know what these cost? Not much, only 2-3 months worth of yer average paraeducator salary. Better buy a refrigerator while you're at it, so you'll have a box to live in...put it up over that grate downtown. Maybe we need to make these types of what are essentially diagnostics opt-in, in which case the rich live and the poor die, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. |
I just had one done last year. With insurance (paid by me). Without insurance, it would've cost me approximately 3000...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:33 |
Negoba wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things.
2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important.
3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance.
4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs.
5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks.
6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace.
7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare. |
While all of this sounds ok, assuming the model to follow is an insurance, for-profit one (which I guess, sadly -in my view- it's the logical for the American view of things), do you agree with some regulation as in, for example, denying insurance for pre-existing conditions? And if you don't consider any kind of regulation acceptable, what is an alternative that this market would create for people who fall in that category (sick people, the ones who need health services the most)? |
Staying under an insurance model and then saying you can't choose who to insure is one of the wierdest ideas ever. But yet it's part of the system both before and after the reform bill. The market, like natural selection, works when non-viable entities die off. I see the economical point here.
I still can't grasp health care as a for-profit business.
The libertarian ideal, I think, is that those in need can be cared for only by the voluntary giving of those with resources. Forcing anyone to give up their resources involuntarily is essentially unacceptable. Yes... And I fail to see those people who will rush to pay for treatment for their fellow American... unless it's being taken penny by penny in their taxes... Like in the rest of the civilized world....
I still can't grasp health care as a for-profit business.
I disagree with these ideas, but I am working as hard as I can to understand them.. I do understand where they come from. And it's sociological and psychological and maybe even biological... This is the way here. Changing it will take a LOT of miracles to occur....
(Maybe in 2050 when the minorities are the majority this way of thinking will expire....  ) |
Edited by The T - March 24 2010 at 23:34
|
|
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10680
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:35 |
|
^ the end of the cowboy era (referencing a post by David earlier).
Edited by Easy Money - March 24 2010 at 23:37
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: March 24 2010 at 23:50 |
The T wrote:
jammun wrote:
How does a colonoscopy not fall under the insurance model? Has anyone had one of those lately? My wife has, just last summer, and actually I'm overdue for one, or so my doc says. Does anyone know what these cost? Not much, only 2-3 months worth of yer average paraeducator salary. Better buy a refrigerator while you're at it, so you'll have a box to live in...put it up over that grate downtown. Maybe we need to make these types of what are essentially diagnostics opt-in, in which case the rich live and the poor die, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. |
I just had one done last year. With insurance (paid by me). Without insurance, it would've cost me approximately 3000...
|
Yep, her's was right around $3000. Her share of insurance cost (subsidized by her employer) runs around $250/month, which is equal to 20% of her salary. So I guess that's a good deal. My argument...how does it not fall under the insurance model?...stands. So various fed/state/local taxes = 60% of income + 20% for health insurance. We're livin' the good life here now, aren't we? Of course in another thread I'm contemplating that MFSL version of Fragile, since I have a good job (so does she, it just pays McUSA wages). I'm just trying to point out what sort of strain many are under here in the U.S.
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
Qboyy007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2009
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
Points: 186
|
Posted: March 25 2010 at 01:23 |
The T wrote:
Qboyy007 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
So I'm watching Countdown With Keith Olberman (on personal leave his Dad just died). Barney Frank was just on to discuss all the threats that some Representatives and Senators are getting for voting for health reform. He said the doesn't get many death threats, mostly after death threats.
If you haven't been following the news the teabaggers have become really sore losers.
The Dems in the Senate have been smacking down Reps attempts at final derailment of reconciliation through amendment abuse.
Fox Noise, which spent so much time and effort smearing the legislation could only be bothered with a few seconds of coverage for the Presidential signing.
As people are getting the facts about what is actually in the legislation, public approval ratings are going up.
|
Watching MSNC and saying Fox News is bad makes you just as stupid as them. |
Not being able to make ONE comment without insults and with at least ONE idea makes you... a genius? An example? |
The fact that he complains about Fox News when he most likely watches MSNBC or ANY NEWS OUTLET, written or televised, is pathetic. You're an absolute moron if you disagree, sorry.
Edited by Qboyy007 - March 25 2010 at 01:24
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65644
|
Posted: March 25 2010 at 02:41 |
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: March 25 2010 at 04:59 |
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To answer your first unnumbered question before I go to sleep:
1) Allow health care to be purchased across state lines. This is one of the most obvious things.
I must admit I don't understand why this is regulated now. Is there a function to this restriction even a profit driven one?
I don't know in this case but usually these things are down for the purpose of keeping costs up to benefit these companies. Government and corporations have this cushy cooperation that's put under any number of empty phrases.
2) Tort reform is overblown in what its effectiveness will be, but is still important.
Defensive medicine is where the actual costs associated with lawsuits are the highest. I agree it is one important piece.
3) End tax penalties levied against those who provide their own insurance.
Again I admit ignorance on this. What tax penalties are there? But another point is self-insured entities often don't get the negotiated rates that govern how money actually flows from insurers to hospitals, etc. Negotiated price based on volume is a mainstay of free market economics, but causes some obvious nastines in health care.
I'm not sure of the exact % but there is a tax on individuals who provide for their own insurance. I must admit I didn't understand what you're saying in the rest of the post. Care to rephrase?
4) Do away with government mandated liscencing requirements for med schools, hospitals, doctors etc. This will flood the market with supply and force downward pressure on costs.
I understand the idea here, but allowing unregulated folks to perform surgery is a little scary. I happened to have to work with a poorly trained older physician acting as a surgeon who got grandfathered in and whose techniques were crazy terrible. He was a good salesman, though, and many of his patients didn't know the difference. This differential in knowledge makes it very difficult for the consumers of health care make the kind of decisions that make for good free market economics.
Personal feedback and public opinion is a much better regulator of quality than arbitrary certifications. As you just said it seems scary to go to a surgeon who has a bachelors in Psych. or whatever. So most people will not do it and they should not do it. However, if you need a hearing test, do you need to go to someone who has gone through 10 years of higher education? What if you child has a runny nose? Most day to day diagnosis are incredibly simple and don't require the astronomical cost that forcing only the highest trained to perform.
5) Eliminate restrictions which prevent insurers from deeming certain personal activities as uninsurable risks.
Including personal accountability is a great goal. Not sure if it could go this far though. Have to think on it.
Why couldn't an insurance company open which does not allow those who base jump to be insured? This action and its risk come completely of your own choice.
6) (I'm for the abolition of the FDA but at least) relax FDA standards to allow quicker entry of legit care and preventative medicine into the marketplace.
The knowledge differential comes into play here again, but the current FDA is doing a terrible job. This is a subject that could take up a book on its own.
7) A general move towards individual, rather than business, provided healthcare.
I like this idea, but it would require a big change in how things are currently priced.
I agree, but allowing consumers to shop for their own health care places more accountability and allows for feedback to insurance companies which is not quite present when people are lumped according to their business plans.
|
|
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
A health care question...
