Scooby's Hubby Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Because of problems of adverse selection. If Blue Cross has a healthy guy at GM and then me aren't we both already their risk and how is it really different to their payout bottom line? Regardless of the premium charged we still cost the same so why does he get it cheaper? Blue Cross has us both to risk as it is. It is just an excuse to charge me more for the same and it is kinda BS. Of course, they know being only 3 employess they could care less about my business, see and that is what Congress should be fighting for, me the little guy. GM gets the cheap deal already so they don't need fighting for when it comes to healthcare premiums costs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 If Blue Cross has a healthy guy at GM and then me aren't we both already their risk... Blue Cross doesn't know what your respective risks are. They have a decent idea of what the average risk is for GM employees, but they have no real idea what the average risk is from your employees. The mere fact that you are trying to buy insurance suggests that you might be the kind of person who is going to need it--hence, they charge you more because they think your risk is higher than what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Blue Cross doesn't know what your respective risks are. They have a decent idea of what the average risk is for GM employees, but they have no real idea what the average risk is from your employees. The mere fact that you are trying to buy insurance suggests that you might be the kind of person who is going to need it--hence, they charge you more because they think your risk is higher than what it is. I hear ya and I get the system as it is now...I think if Congress wants to make the right change they would need to heavily regulate the industry and expose the hippocracies (like the fact that the same 25 mg of drug A is cheaper in Canada than in the US). Please do not try to explain why that is so, just that it is hippocritical and wrong, "morally", which is a word I keep hearing on CSPAN today from the Dem side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I hear ya and I get the system as it is now...I think if Congress wants to make the right change they would need to heavily regulate the industry and expose the hippocracies (like the fact that the same 25 mg of drug A is cheaper in Canada than in the US). Please do not try to explain why that is so, just that it is hippocritical and wrong, "morally", which is a word I keep hearing on CSPAN today from the Dem side. What you got against the hippopotamus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I hear ya and I get the system as it is now...I think if Congress wants to make the right change they would need to heavily regulate the industry and expose the hippocracies (like the fact that the same 25 mg of drug A is cheaper in Canada than in the US). Please do not try to explain why that is so, just that it is hippocritical and wrong, "morally", which is a word I keep hearing on CSPAN today from the Dem side. So I'm confused. Your against this proposed legislation but this legislation covers a lot of what your upset about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 So I'm confused. Your against this proposed legislation but this legislation covers a lot of what your upset about? It is poorly written legislation, which is why there is a Louisianna Purchase, Gator Aid, Cornhusker Kickback, to mention a few, so why were the votes bought? b/c the bill is poorly funded and written and needs to be done over, but if that happened then the Dems would not be able to say they did it all. I am totally for healthcare but I am not for a broken system that is hurried for ego's sake. I know Nancy is 70 today and this is her last shot, a reconciliation not a real vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 It is poorly written legislation, which is why there is a Louisianna Purchase, Gator Aid, Cornhusker Kickback, to mention a few, so why were the votes bought? b/c the bill is poorly funded and written and needs to be done over, but if that happened then the Dems would not be able to say they did it all. I am totally for healthcare but I am not for a broken system that is hurried for ego's sake. I know Nancy is 70 today and this is her last shot, a reconciliation not a real vote. Unfortunately in this deeply partisan world of politics, issues like this will never be perfect. I believe this legislation is a baby step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) Unfortunately in this deeply partisan world of politics, issues like this will never be perfect. I believe this legislation is a baby step in the right direction. I will say that healthcare reform of some kind is long overdue. I hope that in 6 mos when the bill begins that there will be help for those who had no help and that Congress will be open to the reform that insured need from the Providers, the Drug makers, the hospitals and equipment and service providers. There could be a real job boom in these industries if the legislation will allow and condone it. Edited March 21, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 9) What doesn't it do? Even if the bill passes, the fundamental structure of the U.S. medical system will remain more or less the same -- you'll pay a private insurance company, they'll reimburse your doctors for care. There's no public health insurance option, which many progressives wanted; there's nothing remotely like a single-payer healthcare system, which progressives had hoped for at the outset. That's by design. The White House decided early on to try to work with the big industries involved in healthcare and get them to join the effort, rather than trying to fight against them. Believe it or not, that's made it easier to pass the bill (the opposition would be far greater if most industry groups weren't still on board). But it also limited its ambition -- the goal was to tinker with the way the system worked, not scrap it and replace it with something else. That quote from bp's article sums up the problem with the health care reform in a nutshell. It is only creating another entitlement that is not financially viable (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and that further props up a broken system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I don't know what I feel right now....I'm so....numb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Well all I can say is that now we are the USSA. What's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh-mongus Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Well all I can say is that now we are the USSA. What's next? Your fishing pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 That quote from bp's article sums up the problem with the health care reform in a nutshell. It is only creating another entitlement that is not financially viable (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and that further props up a broken system. I agree with you. The next step needs to be comphrensive Medicare/Medicaid reform to work on cost containmnet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I agree with you. The next step needs to be comphrensive Medicare/Medicaid reform to work on cost containmnet. I honestly believe that there is nothing that will help contain or control costs regarding health care other than removing the middle man (employers) and going to a system of true insurance versus "insulation". If Medicare/Medicaid start paying less, the costs will just be shifted to the other consumers and result in higher insurance premiums for everyone (that are soon to be government mandated). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I honestly believe that there is nothing that will help contain or control costs regarding health care other than removing the middle man (employers) and going to a system of true insurance versus "insulation". If Medicare/Medicaid start paying less, the costs will just be shifted to the other consumers and result in higher insurance premiums for everyone (that are soon to be government mandated). Hammer, meet nail. This is THE ONLY THING THAT WILL DRIVE COSTS DOWN AND KEEP COVERAGE ANYWHERE NEAR THE LEVEL IT IS. Why can no one see this? Would you rather be forced to use less, or to decide on your own through economic self interests? People like swammi can cry a freakin' river all they want about the profit motive. Swammi, why don't you tell us how much more innovation comes from gov't control versus private sector investment? The only bi-partisanship going on with this HC bill was OPPOSITION. Think about that a second... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.