Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

[Jon]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

That must have been why McCain never fundraised as well as he did once he brought her on board.

Come on, Jon, you're smarter than that.

Well, not according to you but...

I know that he brought in Palin to shore up the base. She did that, but she also distracted everyone. Or at least she distracted me.

 

[pirate]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

speaking of the health care system, saw a funny ad for a hospital system here in Florida. the ad touted a texting system so you could find out how long the wait was at the emergency room before you came in. if you're thinking about the wait ITS NOT AN EMERGENCY!! doh! use the walk in clinic!

The Star Wars bar scene was based on an ER waiting room.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Didn't you think when Obama started the rush toward health care reform, the first thing he'd do was address costs? I know I did and I think a majority of Americans want the issue of increasing costs addressed before anything else

No, I stated the facts that I see. I've spoken to many of my right winger friends (healthy, by the way) and they're not concerned that the costs often go up by 20% a year. If their taxes go up 1% this year, however, they throw a hissy fit.

Note: My personal polling is not scientific.

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Note: My personal polling is not scientific.

What about your left winger friends?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

What about your left winger friends?

My left wing friends think that everyone should be covered, and insurance companies shouldn't be able to drop someone just because they happen to be sick.

They'd also be more than willing to pay 1% more in taxes if their health insurance premiums would stop rising 5-10 times greater than inflation.

Most of them use Urgent Care instead of the Emergency Room. Go figure.

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

My left wing friends think that everyone should be covered, and insurance companies shouldn't be able to drop someone just because they happen to be sick.

They'd also be more than willing to pay 1% more in taxes if their health insurance premiums would stop rising 5-10 times greater than inflation.
.

Not sure how adding folks to the plan is going to make costs go down. Maybe they're willing to pay more in taxes and in premiums because that's the only way for their dreams to come true.

 

[joecct]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

We need a nationwide lowcost health provider. Sort of like Southwest Airlines.

However, this needs legislation to allow insurance companies to cross state lines.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Not sure how adding folks to the plan is going to make costs go down. Maybe they're willing to pay more in taxes and in premiums because that's the only way for their dreams to come true.

Adding folks - cost containment have been discussed plenty. No reason to rehash that here, and I wasn't saying that was a solution anyway, I was just stating what they felt.

I don't know of anyone who thinks the government is going to make their dreams come true, right or left. Everyone just wants the fairest, levelest playing field possible.

 

[unofan]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Not sure how adding folks to the plan is going to make costs go down. Maybe they're willing to pay more in taxes and in premiums because that's the only way for their dreams to come true.

More people covered presumably spreads the risks of insurance over a broader population base. In theory, universal insurance is the cheapest because there's no problems of self-selection.

But that goes back to the misnomer of "health insurance" - people don't think of health insurance the same way they do homeowners or renter's insurance. They don't want to be insured against an unforseen future injury, they want to be covered for any and all ailments they currently have.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I just want to get blown... Like right now!

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I've referred to it many times by what it is.... It's a ponzi scheme.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

But that goes back to the misnomer of "health insurance" - people don't think of health insurance the same way they do homeowners or renter's insurance. They don't want to be insured against an unforseen future injury, they want to be covered for any and all ailments they currently have.

I see it the same as the other insurance. People who don't don't really understand what NOT having health insurance can do to you.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

But that goes back to the misnomer of "health insurance" - people don't think of health insurance the same way they do homeowners or renter's insurance. They don't want to be insured against an unforseen future injury, they want to be covered for any and all ailments they currently have.

And that's why those who are more likely to file claims on other insurance products pay higher rates. I really don't see why health insurance should not be priced on one's attendant cost factors, whether it be medical history, claims history, lifestyle, etc.

 

[MattS]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

And that's why those who are more likely to file claims on other insurance products pay higher rates. I really don't see why health insurance should not be priced on one's attendant cost factors, whether it be medical history, claims history, lifestyle, etc.

Because it would require people to actually be accountable for their horrible lifestyles. And we all know a huge portion of American's are basically lazy and fat. They don't want to be healthy and would rather just screw the healthy people over. Think of the outrage that would happen if people actually had to pay the price for being 500 lbs or smoking 3 packs a day!

I am all for more of pay more for more risk setup. My real concern is how to handle diseases that are genetic and not lifestyle related. And what to do when we find out that a habit/food/lifestyle that was once thought to be benign is found to be detrimental. Do those people get penalized or not? Lots of small details would need to be worked out.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I am all for more of pay more for more risk setup. My real concern is how to handle diseases that are genetic and not lifestyle related. And what to do when we find out that a habit/food/lifestyle that was once thought to be benign is found to be detrimental. Do those people get penalized or not? Lots of small details would need to be worked out.

It's one thing if a person has a diagnosed condition which could give rise to medical issues they can't mitigate or control, versus those who simply are too lazy to even take a walk, unless it's to the fridge. And those who go to the ER or MD for every little sniffle or cough.

People should be accountable for the risk-factors they can control, like any other form of insurance. I think about risk-based pricing every day I come to work and see some fatass who can't even stand without wheezing feeding his face with our greasy, nasty cafeteria food. I like to think that we're both being assessed that little 12% increase in our premiums this year, and that sooner or later he'll keel over before me.

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

More people covered presumably spreads the risks of insurance over a broader population base. In theory, universal insurance is the cheapest because there's no problems of self-selection.
.

It would also mean everyone paid in.

 

[Rover]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Because it would require people to actually be accountable for their horrible lifestyles. And we all know a huge portion of American's are basically lazy and fat. They don't want to be healthy and would rather just screw the healthy people over. Think of the outrage that would happen if people actually had to pay the price for being 500 lbs or smoking 3 packs a day!

I am all for more of pay more for more risk setup. My real concern is how to handle diseases that are genetic and not lifestyle related. And what to do when we find out that a habit/food/lifestyle that was once thought to be benign is found to be detrimental. Do those people get penalized or not? Lots of small details would need to be worked out.

Start with the easy ones. Smoking for starters. Morbid obesity being another. In each case you could give the person a couple of chances to change their lifestyle (for example insurer covers smoking cessation or weight loss classes). If after that the problems continue, pay up.

For the fatties, I don't want to start hiking rates for people 20 pounds overweight, because opinions can differ for proper height/weight/body mass ratios. However if you're 100 pounds overweight its safe to say you blew away any reasonable scale (no pun intended).

 

[MattS]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

It's one thing if a person has a diagnosed condition which could give rise to medical issues they can't mitigate or control, versus those who simply are too lazy to even take a walk, unless it's to the fridge. And those who go to the ER or MD for every little sniffle or cough.

These are the easy cases as long as people with genetic diseases (i.e. diseases one is not control of) are not penalized.

People should be accountable for the risk-factors they can control, like any other form of insurance.

Absolutely.

I think about risk-based pricing every day I come to work and see some fatass who can't even stand without wheezing feeding his face with our greasy, nasty cafeteria food. I like to think that we're both being assessed that little 12% increase in our premiums this year, and that sooner or later he'll keel over before me.

I think roughly the same thing every time I walk by the "smokers" area going to/from my building at work and people are standing outside there puffing away on their cancer sticks. I take even more pleasure when it is below zero and there is a nice stiff breeze coming straight from Canada and they are out there shivering.

 

[MattS]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Start with the easy ones. Smoking for starters. Morbid obesity being another. In each case you could give the person a couple of chances to change their lifestyle (for example insurer covers smoking cessation or weight loss classes). If after that the problems continue, pay up.

For the fatties, I don't want to start hiking rates for people 20 pounds overweight, because opinions can differ for proper height/weight/body mass ratios. However if you're 100 pounds overweight its safe to say you blew away any reasonable scale (no pun intended).

Oh my God! A Rover post that I agree with!

I am going to go home and start drinking now as I am sure the world is coming to an end.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

first of all the world would end if you had to pay for "health" care. many people with insurance have no ideas what things 'really cost'.

when my dad was raising us, he carried "hospitalization".

if one of us went to hospital it was covered. when i was born my dad didn't have a job by the time my mom was prego. that was a preexisting condition. when i came my dad went to the hospital two consecutive fridays after work to pay the bill (1967).

growing up we lived next to a dr's office. he had tuesday's off along with sunday and saturday afternoon. he worked every other day though and the lot was always full. when we were sick he'd see us and we'd walk over and sit in the waiting room and get to see him and his one nurse (70's). those visits weren't covered. we paid. wasn't much. you'd write a check. you got scripts. they weren't much.

now?

i go for regular one hour visits every six months for my condition. i get five blood tests. i talk to my dr. i pay $20 (EASILY less than my 70's visits inflation adjusted). every so often billing screws up and i see a bill. my august hour with the dr? $1,493.00

is he fff***in high?!?!?

would i ever come close to paying that out of may pocket? hell no.

but someone pays for me and he makes that (works in mgh, so they get a cut too of course). 8 times a day. 4 days a week. plus he visits his patients in the hospital after hours and during lunch.

do i begrudge him this? no.
smart guy. works hard. incredibly nice.

but when 'nobody' pays, yet everybody 'gets paid'. prices will tend to rise and extra hands will get involved.

even i realize that you need something larger than a free market economy to rein that in.