Private health insurers - domestic abuse a pre-existing condition

[wpiman2]

When you live and work in LA, a car is not optional. Its a half hour one way to a grocery store that doesnt charge exorbitant prices, a lot of what you might need to do or get done isnt covered in the range of public transportation. LA does have a lot of buses but the actual frequency of those buses is very poor and they are often late (Not good for work).

Also, as a security guard, the jobsite, the head office, where I lived, were all in different cities in LA county. Yes theoretically you could take public transportation but it would take you several hours and cut time out of things like sleeping and running errands.

Having a car in LA costs you more money but you more than earn it back in the time you are saved by avoiding a public transportation system that works marginally well.

To where? With what money? My school is here right now so no I cant move unless I want to stop going to school.

Medicaid is called Medical in California, all employees pay into it. The problem is the program's funding has been seriously cut so it no longer functions the way its supposed to. It used to be a good program.

So we shouldnt fund healthcare because ultimately it still sucks to be poor?

Nobody is gonna pay for my medical care, its a nice thought, but it aint happening.

Well, millions of people use the public transportation system there to get to work and perform their errands. People in metropolitan areas are in far less need for a car. I guess you are an outlier here.

The city also has beautiful weather and bike paths. Go figure.

Perhaps we should cut all public transportation system subsidies so people like yourself can afford cars and we can use that money towards the health care costs you are spending elsewhere.

If you are in school; you are at a time in your life when you should allow yourself to go into debt. Unfortunately Obama hasn't lived up with his campaign promises and students loans are the worst they have been in years. I feel your pain there; but that is still very healthy debt.

If you are in school; there are campus health centers you can use; and they also have options for health care.

Get some student loans and you can use some of those to get health care through school.

 

[Steezie]

Well, millions of people use the public transportation system there to get to work and perform their errands. People in metropolitan areas are in far less need for a car. I guess you are an outlier here.

LA is 13th on a list of US cities by actual physical area and on that list has more population than any other city in the top 20. LA is a HUGE city and much of it is unplanned. It's the second largest city in the US in terms of population. Yes many people use public transportation to get to work and to live, you'll note, however, that that limits your ability to work because you cant take a job that public transit wont get you to.

You also open yourself up to dealing with the Sureños using public transit extensively. As a huero, even a six foot plus one who carries a weapon, I'd rather not get into that.

The city also has beautiful weather and bike paths. Go figure.

Ok, how much of LA did you actually see? Bike paths are not that common until you get down to places like the financial district or the nice areas of downtown. Head out into east LA or down south, forget about it.

As far as the weather, where in the name of all that's holy did you get the idea that LA has beautiful weather? It can hit 95 and stay there for over a month straight. Waking up at 3am to it being 90 degrees is not unusual. Hot, dry winds combined with blasting sunshine is characteristic of LA for about eight months out of the year.

Thats all on top of the smog

Perhaps we should cut all public transportation system subsidies so people like yourself can afford cars and we can use that money towards the health care costs you are spending elsewhere.

I think we need to have public transit that works period, then I think we'll see improvement. Public transit in a city like LA is difficult and costly, hence why the city doesnt invest nearly as much in it as they need to and why LA is such a car-centered city.

If you are in school; you are at a time in your life when you should allow yourself to go into debt. Unfortunately Obama hasn't lived up with his campaign promises and students loans are the worst they have been in years. I feel your pain there; but that is still very healthy debt.

No debt is healthy, that is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

If you are in school; there are campus health centers you can use; and they also have options for health care.

Yeah, bandaids and aspirin. Student health centers are great at catching STDs and malnutrition. Anything beyond that and they'll send you to a regular hospital. They arent there to be regular care provider.

Get some student loans and you can use some of those to get health care through school.

What makes you think I dont already have them?

 

[Chajara]

Get some student loans and you can use some of those to get health care through school.

Did you seriously just tell someone to take out a student loan to afford health care?

And he's got a point about public transit. I have no driver's license and lost my job at the only place within bus range that's hiring. I had to go back to work with my boyfriend, who drives us to work. Without the car we'd have very little income and still a whole lot of rent, bills, and student loans to pay for. And on top of that, have you ever tried going grocery shopping for the week when you have to take the bus? Yeah, have fun throwing your back out carrying everything and having your frozen stuff melt because the bus hasn't come for 45 minutes. It's also tons of fun getting frostbite in a snowstorm because the buses are all stuck in a drift downtown and you have no other way to get home from work.

But hey, that's just life, right? After all, we lazy people could always go out and get another job, right? Oh, wait. Unemployment Rate Hits 9.5 Percent As Economy Sheds 467,000 Jobs In June

 

[wpiman2]

Did you seriously just tell someone to take out a student loan to afford health care?

And he's got a point about public transit. I have no driver's license and lost my job at the only place within bus range that's hiring. I had to go back to work with my boyfriend, who drives us to work. Without the car we'd have very little income and still a whole lot of rent, bills, and student loans to pay for. And on top of that, have you ever tried going grocery shopping for the week when you have to take the bus? Yeah, have fun throwing your back out carrying everything and having your frozen stuff melt because the bus hasn't come for 45 minutes. It's also tons of fun getting frostbite in a snowstorm because the buses are all stuck in a drift downtown and you have no other way to get home from work.

But hey, that's just life, right? After all, we lazy people could always go out and get another job, right? Oh, wait. Unemployment Rate Hits 9.5 Percent As Economy Sheds 467,000 Jobs In June

I told him get get student loans to pay HIS bills while he is in school. I applaud him for trying to improve his lot in life; and affordable student loans should be made available to students and Obama had really dropped the ball.

I have never been to Milwaukee; but saw a plethora of buses in LA.

I have lived in a metropolitan area and carried groceries many, many blocks. I had a little cart. I made do with many smaller trips and had to go up 4 flights of stairs. It took a little getting used to; but was manageable. The idea of "grocery shopping for the week" doesn't exist when you live in a city.

People don't get frostbite in LA. In Boston; we have these things called jackets we wear when it gets cold. If you are currently broke and can't afford one; they give them out for free at the salvation army.

You are right; the economy is a bear right now.

 

[BlackAndy]

Where are you guaranteed the right to medical treatment in the Constitution?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Let's also assume that the government pays for your health insurance without somehow raising your taxes in kind. The money will just fall from the sky in this scenario. Now everyone that you compete with for resources in your life will now have more available cash. Your neighbors who were paying $500 a month for healthcare out of pocket will now have that in their pocket. They will still be competing with you for apartments; and can now use that extra $500 to outbid you on your next apartment- on a used car- etc... There will be more money in the system; and you'll get squeezed in other places. You will be complaining then when the landlord's raise their rents $500 because they can and the market will bear it. ?

The reason that costs won’t spiral is competition – the exact same competition that’s not present in private health care. Sure, your landlord could raise rents by $500 month because the govt covered people’s health care, and your car dealer could raise lot prices, but unless there is a huuuuge limit on apartments for rent and cars for sale (and there isn’t), it won’t be long until you move into a cheaper place or buy another cheaper car.

If you take your argument to an extreme, what you should do is implement communism because fixed low wages will keep prices down. And we know that doesn’t work.

As for the tax argument, I keep hearing about higher taxes to cover government HC. But what has actually happened is that the government has outsourced a service, and forced the public to wear the cost. Whether you pay tax to the govt, or money to a private insurer, it’s still money gone from your pay packet that you can’t spend.

Given the numerous times it’s been shown here that govt HC is cheaper than what people pay in the US, even if the govt raised taxes to cover medical expenses 100%, you’d probably still be better off. And since it would end the 1000s of bankruptcies every year due to health costs, the money and effort saved would go back into the economy, creating more jobs. It would also end the need for the administration around Medicaid.

And as a side benefit, it would give the govt a huge incentive to deal with illegal immigrants accessing services for free who (as I understand it) are effectively subsidised by the general public there.

 

[kiwimac]

Where are you guaranteed the right to medical treatment in the Constitution?

The same place you are guaranteed paved roads and paths.

 

[Steezie]

Where are you guaranteed the right to medical treatment in the Constitution?

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it before, I'll say it again; BOOYAH!

I told him get get student loans to pay HIS bills while he is in school. I applaud him for trying to improve his lot in life; and affordable student loans should be made available to students and Obama had really dropped the ball.

Actually, if you'd paid attention, Obama HAS increased student scholarships. Problem is a lot of those are merit scholarships and apply to four year university students, not community college students.

I have never been to Milwaukee; but saw a plethora of buses in LA.

Again, as someone who has lived in LA county his entire life, I promise you that seeing lots of buses means absolutely nothing. Our public transit sucks, plain and simple.

People don't get frostbite in LA

No but you do get heat stroke.

 

[wpiman2]

The reason that costs won’t spiral is competition – the exact same competition that’s not present in private health care. Sure, your landlord could raise rents by $500 month because the govt covered people’s health care, and your car dealer could raise lot prices, but unless there is a huuuuge limit on apartments for rent and cars for sale (and there isn’t), it won’t be long until you move into a cheaper place or buy another cheaper car.

There is a fixed amount of rental property in major cities. The more money there is in that area; the price will trend upwards. You point out cars which have a far different elasticity of demand. You can make more cars pretty easily; you can't make more land.

How is going from having many options from health care to a single payer system going to increase competition?

If you take your argument to an extreme, what you should do is implement communism because fixed low wages will keep prices down. And we know that doesn’t work.

Take a look at New York; all of the rent controlled apartments are not in the hands of the poor; but are often given as perks by businesses or hand out by politicians.

You are right; it doesn't work.

As for the tax argument, I keep hearing about higher taxes to cover government HC. But what has actually happened is that the government has outsourced a service, and forced the public to wear the cost. Whether you pay tax to the govt, or money to a private insurer, it’s still money gone from your pay packet that you can’t spend.

Well, it really isn't their service to outsource. It is my personal responsibility to care for myself. If I choose to smoke; I should expect to pay more as I am more likely to get sick and require service.

I could decide to go without and self insure; and I wouldn't be forced to bear any of the cost. (albeit we already pay for insurance for a large number of people via medicare/medicaid)

Given the numerous times it’s been shown here that govt HC is cheaper than what people pay in the US, even if the govt raised taxes to cover medical expenses 100%, you’d probably still be better off. And since it would end the 1000s of bankruptcies every year due to health costs, the money and effort saved would go back into the economy, creating more jobs. It would also end the need for the administration around Medicaid.

And as a side benefit, it would give the govt a huge incentive to deal with illegal immigrants accessing services for free who (as I understand it) are effectively subsidised by the general public there.

3/4 of the health care innovation comes from the US and trickles down to other countries. If we change our system to disincentive innovation (ie. less profit); it has pretty much been shown that the pace of innovation will slow for everyone. That is bad for everyone in every country.

Our (US) medicare/medicaid system is a huge unfunded liability now. According to the GAO it is our biggest fiscal threat. We can't afford it now; our government is slated to go bankrupt in the next few decades. I'd rather see individuals go bankrupt than the entire country. Our bankruptcy system is well proven to work; and should have been allowed to work its magic on AIG and Bear Sterns. Bankruptcy is not the end of the work; but a new beginning.

If the government goes bankrupt; we have little precedence for it; maybe Germany in the 20s/30s.

 

[wpiman2]

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it before, I'll say it again; BOOYAH!

Actually, if you'd paid attention, Obama HAS increased student scholarships. Problem is a lot of those are merit scholarships and apply to four year university students, not community college students.

Again, as someone who has lived in LA county his entire life, I promise you that seeing lots of buses means absolutely nothing. Our public transit sucks, plain and simple.

No but you do get heat stroke.

Please lay out your legal argument for how the ninth amendment guarantees you the right to medical treatment.

From the little law that I have studied; the ninth amendment refrains the government from infringing upon your rights not specified in the Bill of Rights.

A "Right to Health Treatment" as you claim is premised on the fact that someone will in fact treat you. You are then in fact, treading upon the rights of the person treating you. What if they refuse? They have thus violated your rights. I could claim a "Right to Sex of Demand" using this same argument.

The federal government can create roads as it has the power to regulate commerce between the states. Using the roads though; has been shown to be a privilege and not a right. Most roads are state run; and states can have vastly different laws; which is a good thing. What works in New York and what works is Alabama are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Steezie]

Please lay out your legal argument for how the ninth amendment guarantees you the right to medical treatment.

From the little law that I have studied; the ninth amendment refrains the government from infringing upon your rights not specified in the Bill of Rights.

A "Right to Health Treatment" as you claim is premised on the fact that someone will in fact treat you. You are then in fact, treading upon the rights of the person treating you. What if they refuse? They have thus violated your rights. I could claim a "Right to Sex of Demand" using this same argument.

The federal government can create roads as it has the power to regulate commerce between the states. Using the roads though; has been shown to be a privilege and not a right. Most roads are state run; and states can have vastly different laws; which is a good thing. What works in New York and what works is Alabama are not necessarily the same thing.

I was pre-empting the argument "its not in the constitution so we dont have to worry about it" by pointing out that the Ninth amendment states that simply because something isnt in the constitution doesnt mean its not a right that can be ignored.

 

[wpiman2]

I was pre-empting the argument "its not in the constitution so we dont have to worry about it" by pointing out that the Ninth amendment states that simply because something isnt in the constitution doesnt mean its not a right that can be ignored.

It says that there are rights that exist that are not specified that cannot be infringed upon; not guaranteed.

If you want a somewhat Constitutional argument- your unalienable rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (actually stems from Declaration of Independence). You could attempt to argue that "health care" is part of your life right. Albeit, a much stronger argument could be made for it falling under the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Steezie]

It says that there are rights that exist that are not specified that cannot be infringed upon; not guaranteed.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[kiwimac]

Name that part of the Constitution which implies that folk should have to die from lack of health care.

 

[wpiman2]

Name that part of the Constitution which implies that folk should have to die from lack of health care.

Sorry; no shoulds in there. Our founding fathers knew better than to put such ambiguity in there.

We aren't guaranteed happiness; or even the right to earn a decent wage for our work. We simply have the right to pursue these goals.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

There is a fixed amount of rental property in major cities. The more money there is in that area; the price will trend upwards. You point out cars which have a far different elasticity of demand. You can make more cars pretty easily; you can't make more land.

How is going from having many options from health care to a single payer system going to increase competition?

Well look at it this way - there's a lot more choice in rental property and cars than there is in health care. And, to use your own argument, the insurers are free to raise prices because many Americans have their insurance subsidised by their employers - thus the cost is hidden and drives their premiums up.

 

[wpiman2]

Well look at it this way - there's a lot more choice in rental property and cars than there is in health care. And, to use your own argument, the insurers are free to raise prices because many Americans have their insurance subsidised by their employers - thus the cost is hidden and drives their premiums up.

You don't think companies watch their bottom lines and shop for the best deals for them and their employees? What company do you work for; Goldman Sachs?

 

[jayem]

You don't think companies watch their bottom lines and shop for the best deals for them and their employees? What company do you work for; Goldman Sachs?

But what's best for an employer's bottom line may not be the best coverage for their employees. Would you not put it past insurance carriers to offer a lower premium through avaricious and abusive claims handling?My niece was diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency, and it literally took the intervention of my sister's Congressman to get her employer's insuror to cover the child's HGH injections. For nearly a full year they delayed authorizing treatment with incessant demands for repeated testing and multiple opinions. OK, that's just anecdotal, but it seems that an awful lot of people have similar experiences with their insurors if they're unfortunate enough to get an illness that's very expensive to treat.

Government should not become an insurance company. The public option should be tanked. But government (federal and state) needs to regulate for-profit private insurors more tightly. They should be free to compete, but under rules that shift the balance of power more to the consumers. Even if it somewhat raises insurance costs, it's in the public interest. There's a word that well describes for-profit insurance carriers, but I have to cheat the filter to use it: N-I-G-G-A-R-D-L-Y

 

[wpiman2]

But what's best for an employer's bottom line may not be the best coverage for their employees. Would you not put it past insurance carriers to offer a lower premium through avaricious and abusive claims handling?My niece was diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency, and it literally took the intervention of my sister's Congressman to get her employer's insuror to cover the child's HGH injections. For nearly a full year they delayed authorizing treatment with incessant demands for repeated testing and multiple opinions. OK, that's just anecdotal, but it seems that an awful lot of people have similar experiences with their insurors if they're unfortunate enough to get an illness that's very expensive to treat.

Government should not become an insurance company. The public option should be tanked. But government (federal and state) needs to regulate for-profit private insurors more tightly. They should be free to compete, but under rules that shift the balance of power more to the consumers. Even if it somewhat raises insurance costs, it's in the public interest. There's a word that well describes for-profit insurance carriers, but I have to cheat the filter to use it: N-I-G-G-A-R-D-L-Y

Wow; I am actually in agreement with you here for the most part.

Companies that people want to work for will offer up good insurance; and will push those insurance companies to pay up. ie. they will go to bat for their employees.

Someone like a GE or a Raytheon can strong arm an insurer into coughing it up. For smaller companies; not so much. I think there needs to be a separate commission of some sort who decides what gets paid for. Such a commission could be industry run or regulated by each state. The commission wouldn't work for the insurer directly.

Again; it all comes down to resources. If we spent $1 million of resources on a liver transplant for a drunk-- is that really a good use of resources? We only have so many livers to transplant; so many surgeon hours in a week; the dollar amount is really just a reflection of the lack of resources. Would it be better to have the surgeon say; remove cancer from sick kids? We have to ratio off these resources somehow;

In all this debate; Obama talks about cutting costs. I understand his preventative side of the equation; but he never addresses the fundamental problem of needing more resources to drive costs down. Double the number of physicians overnight; and prices would plummet tomorrow. Unfortunately, the AMA has Obama and the democrats in his pocket; so things will continue on as usual. Wasted opportunity really.

 

[Steezie]

Wow; I am actually in agreement with you here for the most part.

Companies that people want to work for will offer up good insurance; and will push those insurance companies to pay up. ie. they will go to bat for their employees.

Someone like a GE or a Raytheon can strong arm an insurer into coughing it up. For smaller companies; not so much. I think there needs to be a separate commission of some sort who decides what gets paid for. Such a commission could be industry run or regulated by each state. The commission wouldn't work for the insurer directly.

Again; it all comes down to resources. If we spent $1 million of resources on a liver transplant for a drunk-- is that really a good use of resources? We only have so many livers to transplant; so many surgeon hours in a week; the dollar amount is really just a reflection of the lack of resources. Would it be better to have the surgeon say; remove cancer from sick kids? We have to ratio off these resources somehow;

In all this debate; Obama talks about cutting costs. I understand his preventative side of the equation; but he never addresses the fundamental problem of needing more resources to drive costs down. Double the number of physicians overnight; and prices would plummet tomorrow. Unfortunately, the AMA has Obama and the democrats in his pocket; so things will continue on as usual. Wasted opportunity really.

The problem is when companies collectively start making excuses and dropping coverage across the board. Coverage plan A is good but if hundreds of big companies start dropping A in favor of B which isnt as good for the employee but cheaper for the employer, hundreds more companies start following suit to save money and stay competitive.