Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Political Opinions & Beliefs


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2008, 03:40 PM
JeffLV's Avatar
JeffLV JeffLV is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
usa us nevada
JeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 7,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha View Post
Why do we need relaxation and entertainment? We're the fattest country on earth.
Yet most other countries commonly have televisions too... so in other words, it's not the televisions that are the problem.
__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Last edited by JeffLV; 07-12-2008 at 03:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2008, 04:29 PM
Raharu Haruha's Avatar
Raharu Haruha Raharu Haruha is offline
Banned
Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,276
Raharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 13,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffLV View Post
Yet most other countries commonly have televisions too... so in other words, it's not the televisions that are the problem.
You're an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 01:57 AM
Raharu Haruha's Avatar
Raharu Haruha Raharu Haruha is offline
Banned
Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,276
Raharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 13,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha View Post
You're an idiot.
I'm not going to explain myself, and I think it's really sad if you can't figure out why I called him an idiot.

Last edited by Raharu Haruha; 07-13-2008 at 01:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 02:45 AM
Forest119's Avatar
Forest119 Forest119 is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vientiane LPDR
Age: 35
Posts: 636
laos
Forest119 is a jewel in the roughForest119 is a jewel in the roughForest119 is a jewel in the roughForest119 is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffLV View Post
I'm not necessarally opposed to "reasonably" higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. The question is what is reasonable, and what standards are these audits going to enforce? An audit need not be necessary. If this is going to be a public issue with audit regulation, you could just have a company be required to submit their rates to the government for approval by whatever standards may be. An individual denied coverage when they met the qualifying criteria for the rate and the ability to pay the rate can enforce it by appealing to the government. These rates should be easily viewable by the public and government.

But still the looming question is by what standard are insurance companies going to be allowed to increase the rates on others, and by what standards can the government regulate the price for those who would be made to pay larger rates to make sure they don't become too large? What is too large? More than double what the average person pays?
I was thinking of audit more in the certification sense. This entail tight regulation by the government, which is rare but not unheard of, especially in case relating to public health. (Nuclear energy, for example.)

Determining rate increases and maximum rates would require extensive economic research of the health care industry. It won't be easy to set the standards, and they will need reviewed and amended as time goes on. I am sure they will always be contentious, just as taxes are now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffLV View Post
This helps to address the issue of pre-existing conditions and movement between competitors in the insurance market, but one lingering problem is the issue of the uninsured. If someone is uninsured and develops a problem, should they be allowed to pay a legally reduced premium to get insurance that legally must cover their pre-exiting conditions, or do pre-existing conditions only transfer if someone was insured perviously by another insurer when the problem developed? It would not be fair to those that had been paying for their insurance before to then essentially have to subsidize the person that hopped on after he developed a condition.
This is probably the question that has given me the most to ponder. How do you get everyone to participate? It is much like the question, how do you get everyone to pay their taxes? I don't think there is an easy answer. One thought is including having to provide proof of insurance on your tax returns with penalties if you don't. Another is to require proof of insurance to receive any government benefit, such as social security, welfare, unemployment, etc. This will get much of the uninsured poor insured. (These benefits would correspondingly be increased to the average cost of insurance. This would give the recipients a motivating factor to reduce their risk factors, thereby being charged a lower premium and having more money in pocket.) Just a couple of ideas. There may be better ones out there though.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 12:51 AM
JeffLV's Avatar
JeffLV JeffLV is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
usa us nevada
JeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 7,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha View Post
You're an idiot.
At least I have some class. Have a good night Sweetheart.
__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 01:00 AM
Smael87 Smael87 is offline
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 109
Smael87 is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 399
Default

Raharu Haruha, put down your copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and consider the following:

1. We don't live in the vacuum of a political science class.
2. Government intervention may cost us economic efficiency in the long run, but since it can save lives in the short run intelligent people are going to support it.
3. Nobody likes a libertarian. Not even your imaginary girlfriend.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 01:05 AM
JeffLV's Avatar
JeffLV JeffLV is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
usa us nevada
JeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to beholdJeffLV is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 7,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest119 View Post
I was thinking of audit more in the certification sense. This entail tight regulation by the government, which is rare but not unheard of, especially in case relating to public health. (Nuclear energy, for example.)
forgive me, lol... i have an accounting background, audit is a loaded word to me
Quote:

This is probably the question that has given me the most to ponder. How do you get everyone to participate? It is much like the question, how do you get everyone to pay their taxes? I don't think there is an easy answer. One thought is including having to provide proof of insurance on your tax returns with penalties if you don't. Another is to require proof of insurance to receive any government benefit, such as social security, welfare, unemployment, etc. This will get much of the uninsured poor insured. (These benefits would correspondingly be increased to the average cost of insurance. This would give the recipients a motivating factor to reduce their risk factors, thereby being charged a lower premium and having more money in pocket.) Just a couple of ideas. There may be better ones out there though.
So in other words, either force enrollment and verify enrollment through tax filings or offer substantial state benefits to encourage voluntary enrollment. Well, assuming it works, I guess it's an idea I'm not necessarily opposed to, provided of course a standard of a fair and humane minimum coverage and max price could be established based on your "economic research".
__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 12:22 PM
Raharu Haruha's Avatar
Raharu Haruha Raharu Haruha is offline
Banned
Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,276
Raharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to beholdRaharu Haruha is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 13,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smael87 View Post
Raharu Haruha, put down your copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and consider the following:

1. We don't live in the vacuum of a political science class.
2. Government intervention may cost us economic efficiency in the long run, but since it can save lives in the short run intelligent people are going to support it.
3. Nobody likes a libertarian. Not even your imaginary girlfriend.
I'm sorry you don't care about children. The children that will grow up into a world of debt and war.

It's not intelligent to allow your emotions to control you.

My imaginary girl friend will always be hotter than your hand.

Last edited by Raharu Haruha; 07-16-2008 at 12:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 12:38 PM
Justice Strike's Avatar
Justice Strike Justice Strike is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 26
Posts: 1,248
Justice Strike is a glorious beacon of lightJustice Strike is a glorious beacon of lightJustice Strike is a glorious beacon of lightJustice Strike is a glorious beacon of lightJustice Strike is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 5,179
Send a message via MSN to Justice Strike
Default

You know, without governmental regulation, insurance companies would just sue peopel who are costing to much. It's just cheaper
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2008, 01:10 PM
katiegrrl0's Avatar
katiegrrl0 katiegrrl0 is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tipping The Velvet
Posts: 4,464
katiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond reputekatiegrrl0 has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha View Post
I propose a government run corporation insurance company that competes to provide health insurance. And, all lower forms of insurance companies that do not provide emergency care are banned.

Basically, I don't want the government to allow insurance companies to say, "We'll pay $5,000, and that's it" and then have some clause for every occasion that might occur which would leave the person who bought the insurance uninsured.

Then I would like the government to provide a minimal service. I would like them to provide health insurance to anyone willing to pay what ever it costs (the cost will be a low as possible). I would expect this to turn a profit, a small one, but enough to run a charity for those who cannot truly pay for their own health insurance because of some problems they have. The insurance will cover the person for minor things like colds and sickness and emergency care. If anything chronic were to come up, the person would have to go through enough health insurance agency.

What this would do is keep people from being under insured, which people often are. And it would not completely destroy an industry. I suspect that quality health insurance agencies would still exist. It would be like the government is setting a bar. I also think it would be much like the mail industry. There's the U.S. Post office, but there's also FedEx, and UPs.
I like the idea of a national system for health care. I like it even better if it does not include insurance companies.

The government sets up a price scale according to ability to pay. The higher the personal income the higher the premium. But nothing higher than what people are paying now for top rate insurance.

If employees of any company have health coverage now that money is used to pay the governments plan premiums rather then that of an insurance company. It seems obvious that health insurance carries are making money in the business or they would not do it. The medicare system could be set up to take care of a new general health care system.

Those that are infirmed or disablied and cannot pay are picked as they have been by what is now medicare. It covers as any insurance does today. A person could buy a limited policy through some insurance carrior to cover deductables if they wanted. Or they could pay a higher premium for the goverment coverage to eliminate deductables.

Everyone is covered by the plan there are no exclusions. The employees from insurance companies would have first option at the positions for the government jobs.

It would be ideal if a well care check up would be included each year as a preventative measure. The insurance companies are making money from health care. The government would also. You use half of the funds to continue to upgrade the system the other half goes into the government.

All are covered. There are no excessive premiums and the system turns a profit. It can sound good on papare but in DC who knows.
__________________
ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER!

We will knock on the door, if it does not open, we will revolt for our rights.

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Private vs Public funded Health Insurance DanteAugustusGermanicus Opinion POLLS 148 07-07-2008 10:41 PM
2 out of 3 Doctors Recommend National Health Insurance! DemocratsBlog Political Blogs 1 04-03-2008 09:16 AM
Example of Health Insurance Premiums rwking Health Care 4 11-05-2007 05:19 AM
A National Health Insurance Plan Force-of-the-Truth Political Opinions & Beliefs 26 12-04-2006 11:20 AM
Poverty rose and Health insurance coverage fell mpotter Current Events 17 08-27-2004 02:22 PM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden