"Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : I'm beginning to see that.
    Posted by movingtangent[/QUOTE]

    You don't even know what he's referring to because HE doesn't even know what he's referring to.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from movingtangent. Show movingtangent's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    I know exactly what we're referring to.  Way to throw the reps under the bus in the thread about denying reps healthcare.  When you start being sane then we know something is up.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from movingtangent. Show movingtangent's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : Bwahahahahahahaha...um no. That's just common sense. Bwahahahahaha
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]

    It wasn't all that common 9 months ago. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]I know exactly what we're referring to.  Way to throw the reps under the bus in the thread about denying reps healthcare.  When you start being sane then we know something is up.
    Posted by movingtangent[/QUOTE]

    OMFG...you are a complete fool. So because I don't agree with that foolishness about denying reps healthcare I'm "throwing them under the bus"??? You really are a fri99in moron. Wow
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : It wasn't all that common 9 months ago. 
    Posted by movingtangent[/QUOTE]

    Yup....you're still a moron
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from movingtangent. Show movingtangent's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    You're the one that was against saving the banking system before you were for it. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]You're the one that was against saving the banking system before you were for it. 
    Posted by movingtangent[/QUOTE]

    LOL...nice try
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable
    Wasters of life and limb

    They can polish their medals and sharpen their smiles,
    and amuse themselves playing games for a while

    Boom boom,
    Bang bang,
    Lie down you're dead
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : " If they were not they would pay claims, but many times they don't." Outright lie and you know it. You have no factual basis "As for pre-exisiting conditions, it's true that if you are part of a group plan you can get coverage, but you can pretty much count on the rates going up for that plan about 10%." Another lie, as you have no idea what you're talking about. If a person has a high cost condition but has group coverage with 500 other people then that persons cost isn't even going to make a blip. If that same person is in a company with less than 100 lives then the cost will also not have an affect as groups under 100 lives do not get experience rated. You make these blanket bullshiite statements that just aren't factually true at all.
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]


       A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?em

       Quite an awesome system you wish to defend.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from IamYourDaddy. Show IamYourDaddy's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" :    A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?em    Quite an awesome system you wish to defend.
    Posted by kmatthew68[/QUOTE]

    well 40% of medically related bankruptcies were filed by people who owed 5,000 or less in medical bills ... and in most cases is because the medical industry being much more sgressive in collection action ... more deadbeats

    Think about it ... even if you don't have pay for healthcare, if you are so sick, you are not going to afford to pay your  rent mortgage etc ... you are going to be bankrupt anyway
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" :    A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?em    Quite an awesome system you wish to defend.
    Posted by kmatthew68[/QUOTE]

    Catastrophic health insurance coverage makes sense, why not focus on that, rather than the government taking over 1/7 of the economy?


    "The current debate about reforming U.S. health care policy has included suggestions that nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the United States result from uninsured medical expenses or loss of income due to illness.  Advocates of socialized medicine argue that this would not occur if the United States adopted a government-run health system similar to Canada's.  However, if socialized medicine played a role in reducing personal bankruptcies, we would expect to see a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States. 

    To the contrary, says Fraser:

    • The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent).
    • Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.
    • Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).
    • Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country.

    Thus, bankruptcy statistics do not support arguments for a government-run, single-payer, socialized health insurance system, says Fraser.

    Source: Brett J. Skinner and Mark Rovere, "U.S. Medical Bankruptcies a Myth; Personal Bankruptcy Rate Higher in Canada," Fraser Institute, July 7, 2009.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" :    A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?em    Quite an awesome system you wish to defend.
    Posted by kmatthew68[/QUOTE]

    78% had health insurance. Which means 78% would still go bankrupt even if they were on a public plan.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from gabootwo2006. Show gabootwo2006's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    6 Simple Ways to Dramatically Cut Costs of Medical Care — at Zero Expense to Taxpayers

    Imagine that the federal and state governments imposed laws, regulations, restrictions, and mandates on medical care that drastically increased the cost — without improving medical care.

    What if it were possible to cut your medical care costs by 20% or 30% or even 50% now — while keeping current levels of quality and service — by repealing and removing these government-created burdens and barriers?

    If this were possible, would you want it?

    Would you want the U.S. Congress to repeal and remove these laws, regulations, restrictions, and mandates?

    Would you want your state legislature to do the same?

    Yes? Well, these government-imposed burdens and barriers DO exist — and your federal and state legislators CAN repeal and remove them.

    Would you like to see a small sample?

    1. Allow price advertising. Let pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, and laboratories to publish their prices for goods and services. Eliminate all laws, regulations, and government provisions that hinder or prevent medical providers from posting their prices.

    Charges for the same medical procedure can vary 30% to 300% within a 100-mile radius. But without price information, patients can’t shop for the best value.

    In the 1970’s, U.C.L.A. Economist Sam Peltzman compared the costs of eyeglasses in states that allowed price advertising and states that outlawed it. Results? Much lower prices in states that allowed price advertising.

    2. Let all Americans buy prescription drugs outside the United States. Do NOT force them to travel abroad. Allow them to have the prescription drugs shipped to their homes.

    I’ve seen the 30% to 60% savings in prices of prescription drugs purchased in Mexico.

    International competition for prescription drugs will drive down domestic prescription prices.

    3. Let all people buy medical insurance across state lines. In New Jersey, a single man would pay $4,000 for medical insurance. If he lived in Pennsylvania, he’d pay $1,500. If the New Jersey man could buy medical insurance from a Pennsylvania provider, he’d save $2,500 a year.

    Imagine this all across America.

    This would cut medical insurance costs for millions who already have needlessly overpriced premiums.

    AND, if the American Enterprise Institute study is correct, this would make medical insurance affordable for 12 million uninsured Americans.

    4. Let doctors and patients negotiate discounts for paying cash. If a patient saves a doctor the time, trouble, delay and cost of dealing with insurance companies, Medicare, or Medicaid – let the doctor and patient share the savings.

    5. Let patients, doctors, and hospitals enter into into legally binding, limited-liability contracts. This would reduce the cost of medical treatment by reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.

    Just as Prenuptial Agreements limit marital risk, limited-liability contracts will limit medical risk.

    6. End all government mandates that require businesses or individuals to buy medical insurance. End all government mandates that punish and tax those who do NOT buy medical insurance. Make insurance companies earn our business with lower prices and better quality — rather than lobby government to compel us to buy medical insurance by force of law. (See Carla Howell’s excellent essay, “Why We Need More UNinsured Americans”.)

    This is just a sketch of small government proposals to UN-do the government-caused high prices of medical care.

    A glimpse of small government proposals to come.

    2009 Copyright Michael Cloud

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    "3. Let all people buy medical insurance across state lines. In New Jersey, a single man would pay $4,000 for medical insurance. If he lived in Pennsylvania, he’d pay $1,500. If the New Jersey man could buy medical insurance from a Pennsylvania provider, he’d save $2,500 a year."

    This could only work if cost of care was the same in all States which it's not. Just like cost of living isn't the same, cost of care isn't.
    Take Medicare for example. The base rates are different depending on which State you're in. There are region adjustments, and within a region there are adjustment for urban versus rural. There are adjustment for teaching hospitals versus community hospitals. So because the cost of care is different the coverage premiums have to be different to account for that.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : Catastrophic health insurance coverage makes sense, why not focus on that, rather than the government taking over 1/7 of the economy? "The current debate about reforming U.S. health care policy has included suggestions that nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the United States result from uninsured medical expenses or loss of income due to illness.  Advocates of socialized medicine argue that this would not occur if the United States adopted a government-run health system similar to Canada's.  However, if socialized medicine played a role in reducing personal bankruptcies, we would expect to see a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States.  To the contrary, says Fraser: The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent). Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy. Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older). Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country. Thus, bankruptcy statistics do not support arguments for a government-run, single-payer, socialized health insurance system, says Fraser. Source: Brett J. Skinner and Mark Rovere, "U.S. Medical Bankruptcies a Myth; Personal Bankruptcy Rate Higher in Canada," Fraser Institute, July 7, 2009.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

      Your "Study" in bunk.

    But Skinner and Rovere don’t use the most recent data, which would undermine their case. They use data from 2006 and 2007 that shows bankruptcy rates being higher in Canada than in the U.S. In both years, the Canadian bankruptcy rate was 3.0 per thousand population. In the U.S., the rate was 2.0 per thousand in 2006 and 2.7 in 2007. Skinner and Rovere conclude that a publicly funded health-care system doesn’t lead to lower bankruptcy rates.

    Why, though, didn’t the Fraser authors use 2008 data? It’s not that it wasn’t available. The Fraser study is dated July 7, 2009, and the footnotes indicate they were checking Web sites up to June 17.

    The United States Bankruptcy Courts released its 2008 bankruptcy statistics on March 5, 2009, and the office of the superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada’s annual insolvency-rates Web page was last modified on March 10, 2009. Skinner and Rovere could easily have used the 2008 data.

    But this new data shows that in contrast to 2006 and 2007, the U.S. bankruptcy rate was higher than Canada’s.

    Nor is 2008 the only year American bankruptcies surpassed those in Canada. The Fraser study claims “we should expect to observe a lower rate of bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States, all else being equal.” But all else is not equal. The U.S. revamped its bankruptcy law in 2005—the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act—making it more difficult for consumers to declare bankruptcy. In 2006, the first year used in the Fraser study, American bankruptcy rates plummeted.

    In the six years before the law came into effect, the Canadian rate averaged 3.8 per thousand population, while the average American rate was 6.7 bankruptcies per thousand—nearly 75 percent higher.

    In fact, 2006 and 2007 are the only two years in the past decade in which Canadian bankruptcy rates exceeded the American ones. And they are the only two used in the Fraser analysis.

    Bob Lawless is a professor at the University of Illinois School of Law and a nationally acclaimed expert in bankruptcy and corporate law. In a post on Creditslips.org, a blog for law professors and other experts in credit and bankruptcy, Lawless chastises the Fraser study for using bankruptcy rates for the total population rather than for the adult population (over 18). Despite the housing and financial collapses, not many 11-year-olds are declaring bankruptcy these days. Lawless allowed that the results would likely not be much different if Skinner and Rovere had used the more relevant adult population.

    Lawless accuses the Fraser authors of being “extremely selective” in their use of bankruptcy data. “By limiting the data to 2006 and 2007,” he concludes, “the report is able to support the anti–health-care-reform agenda that the Fraser Institute seems to further.”

     

    http://www.straight.com/article-240556/fraser-institute-spins-facts


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : 78% had health insurance. Which means 78% would still go bankrupt even if they were on a public plan.
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]

       I would love to hear how you jumped to that stunning conclusion.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" : well 40% of medically related bankruptcies were filed by people who owed 5,000 or less in medical bills ... and in most cases is because the medical industry being much more sgressive in collection action ... more deadbeats Think about it ... even if you don't have pay for healthcare, if you are so sick, you are not going to afford to pay your  rent mortgage etc ... you are going to be bankrupt anyway
    Posted by IamYourDaddy[/QUOTE]

       Do you enjoy making stuff up? In the very first paragraph of the posted study by the American journal of medicine it states "92% of these medical debtors had debts over $5000 or 10% of their pretax family income.
    http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf

       Your answer really demonstrates how out of touch current conservatives are with todays health care problems.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" :    I would love to hear how you jumped to that stunning conclusion.
    Posted by kmatthew68[/QUOTE]

    I would like to know what you don't understand about it
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In memory of Ted Kennedy I declare that we as a nation destroy the best healthcare system on the planet and put all of our health at risk!!!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from IamYourDaddy. Show IamYourDaddy's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act" :    Do you enjoy making stuff up? In the very first paragraph of the posted study by the American journal of medicine it states "92% of these medical debtors had debts over $5000 or 10% of their pretax family income. http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf    Your answer really demonstrates how out of touch current conservatives are with todays health care problems.
    Posted by kmatthew68[/QUOTE]

    National studies conducted have found that approximately 21% of American adults under the age of 65 have medical bills of one form or another that they are paying over time. A 2003 study concluded that about 20% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of less than $1,000; about 40% involve a medical debt of less than $5,000; and 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of over $10,000. As it turns out the people that are most affected by medical issues are people that have some insurance, however they do not have enough insurance to cover the full cost.

    http://www.legalhelpers.com/bankruptcy-alternatives/Medical-Bankruptcy-alternatives.html
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act"

    So it comes down to this.  Would you rather be alive in debt or dead with universal government ruined healthcare??

    I choose life.  You can't have both because the governemnt WILL destroy all that is great about our system.  THAT is a fact that is indisputable.
     

Share