Sep 19, 2011 -- 12:22PM, Cesmom wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:57AM, TENAC wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:52AM, Cesmom wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:38AM, TENAC wrote:

Just over 25% of the US uninsured are making $50,000 and more per year.

16% of that make over $75,000 per year.

 

www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

See, to me, that helps prove my point.  I see no excuse for those 25%, but what about the other 75%?  It's being presented in these debates as if those with no insurance are choosing not to take the responsibility of having insurance.  In fact, for many, it is just not an option to have insurance.  There is no money left over to pay for insurance.

If you start from the inflated figure of 50 million uninsured, remove the 12,15,20 million illegal aliens, remove the young that feel they are invincible (those under 30) ultimately you might be at about 8 million uninsured for various reasons.

Lets deal with those people.

 

What seems to get lost in all this is that if you have 10% of the population that is uninsured, there is 90% that are insured.

If the numbers are truly that insignificant, then I can't imagine why there would be an issue with subsidizing healthcare/insurance for those who are uninsured due to lack of income or pre-existing conditions.  If it were so simple to provide a solution for those who really need it, someone could have come up with legislation long ago that everyone could put their support behind, and it wouldn't be thousands of pages long.

I wish I could tell you how much I agree with you.

But there is NO WAY to do this from Washington DC.  It has to be accomplished at the state level.

Not that I agree with Romneycare, but if a state choosed to do that fine, it only affects that state.  With Medicare, for example, that program is going to take down the entire system after 50 years.  Not only the public but private sector as well.

Sep 19, 2011 -- 12:22PM, Cesmom wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:57AM, TENAC wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:52AM, Cesmom wrote:

Sep 19, 2011 -- 10:38AM, TENAC wrote:

Just over 25% of the US uninsured are making $50,000 and more per year.

16% of that make over $75,000 per year.

 

www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

See, to me, that helps prove my point.  I see no excuse for those 25%, but what about the other 75%?  It's being presented in these debates as if those with no insurance are choosing not to take the responsibility of having insurance.  In fact, for many, it is just not an option to have insurance.  There is no money left over to pay for insurance.

If you start from the inflated figure of 50 million uninsured, remove the 12,15,20 million illegal aliens, remove the young that feel they are invincible (those under 30) ultimately you might be at about 8 million uninsured for various reasons.

Lets deal with those people.

 

What seems to get lost in all this is that if you have 10% of the population that is uninsured, there is 90% that are insured.

If the numbers are truly that insignificant, then I can't imagine why there would be an issue with subsidizing healthcare/insurance for those who are uninsured due to lack of income or pre-existing conditions.  If it were so simple to provide a solution for those who really need it, someone could have come up with legislation long ago that everyone could put their support behind, and it wouldn't be thousands of pages long.

Because of the existing abuse. Expanding social programs opens the door for MORE fraud, waste and abuse. If you can convince the bureaucracy to police itself, eliminate the waste and prosecute every case of fraud by bureaucrats and recipients, then I'll be open to discussing supporting it's existence.

Well, the level of abuse may vary from location to location, but it is nowhere near the levels many claim.

A little over a decade ago, San Francisco instituted (at great expense) a fingerprinting cross-reference system for tracking possible welfare fraud from county to county and from state to state.

To date, 1 person has been caught under the system, and it was for applying for benefits in the wrong county, but not for receiving duplicate benefits or for receiving benefits when not eligible. The person lived on a block that was bisected by the county line between San Francisco and San Mateo counties.

Isn't San Francisco a sanctuary city? Doesn't California spend some $4billion-$6 billion annually to provide social services for illegals? I seriously doubt only one person is receiving taxpayer dollars they aren't entitled to.

This uninsured guy was told a hip replacement in the US would cost 80,000-120,000 dollars.

So he went to Mexico and got it done for $13,000 and that included his airfare and hotel.

The  doctor in this piece credits the lower prices to the lower cost of  mal-practice insurance.  He says his insurance premium is 1/10th of what  it would be in the U.S.  How much is the high cost of American health  care attributable to doctors and hospitals protecting themselves against  lawsuits?

In effect, part of your medical bill goes to pay the provider's malpractice insurance premium. 

You  can argue about why the premiums for doctors have skyrocketed, but the  fact remains that the real fear of litigation is either going to make an  activity non-existent or make it very expensive.

This piece  also points out that U. S. medicare benefits cannot be used in Mexico,  even though it would save medicare tons of money.  Making it easier for  seniors to go to Mexico would help drive down U. S. fees.

Everything  seems to be geared toward wrecking the system, so the government can  ultimately take it over.  Whether it's making litigation easy, or saying  you can't spend your benefits outside of the U.S.

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec0...

Sep 24, 2011 -- 2:39PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

 so one wonders why the cost magically can go down when it becomes obvious no one can pay.

Because the stated fee is higher for an insurance company since the insurance will pay less than list price.

You look at your EOB and you see it says "arm and legectomy:  $1000" but in the next column it says they are only going to get re-imbursed $850 from Blue Cross.

They are happy with $850.

So they charge someone with no insurance $850 as well.  Otherwise, they'd be paying more than Blue Cross paid for the same procedure.

They know they are getting 100% of what they bill you, but less than 100% of what they bill an insurance company.