Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-23-2009, 04:12 PM   #51
Fully Optimized
 
dude_56013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,262
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by ߧ∩†H♠HŽ€ View Post
Okay I do plenty to help other people out including donating money & my time. Why exactly should I have to pay more to support the small percentage of the population that can't get insurance? It's not my problem and if they were responsible with their life they would have insurance. Any job I've ever had has offered insurance and it's not that hard to get a job with insurance. I think that's the problem most people have with this. It's always the same people that need food stamps, health coverage, jobs etc etc. They should have a limited option available to help them get back on their feet and if they can't do it within a given time cut them off. I'm sick of people leeching off of others to live.

I currently pay roughly $21 a month for my medical coverage. Why should I be forced to pay more and use some government designed health care system which I'll pay more for and most likely get less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ߧ∩†H♠HŽ€ View Post
Can you form a question other than a generic cop out?

Let me ask why is it my problem and why should I care if these people have insurance or not?

Yes, I've had insurance I've ever worked at. It's not like you have to have a top of the line job to get health coverage. For the sake of the argument McDonalds even offers health coverage. You can't tell me that anyone couldn't get a job at a simple fast food place to get health coverage.

Evidently if they can't they don't need it that bad.

You act as though I should be concerned if my neighbor has insurance or not. It's none of my business and I've got my own problems. If they don't want to take action it's there own fault. Note * A action that doesn't involve me paying more to support them.
Merry Christmas! ...and a Happy New Year!
__________________

dude_56013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 04:35 PM   #52
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,629
Send a message via AIM to ߧ∩H♠H䎀
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_56013 View Post
You know when you resort to name calling you've already lost the argument.

Perhaps you could come up with a reason why I should be for it rather than against it. But I'm guessing you don't have any so you resort to name calling.

You really honestly believe making 85% of working Americans pay more so the bottom 15% can have health insurance is the right idea? Just curious how old you are? Do you have a house, bills, children to support? Well I do and I shouldn't be penalized because I'm not in the bottom 15%.
__________________

ߧ∩H♠H䎀 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 04:57 PM   #53
Fully Optimized
 
dude_56013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,262
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

There is no way that I can even begin to get into your head about why. That's why I didn't write some big philosophical and religious post to you. You don't seem like a Christian, so I'm not going to explain your ignorance as to why. If you know what the Upside Down Kingdom is, you'd know why you are making yourself sound like a complete jerk.
dude_56013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 05:21 PM   #54
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,629
Send a message via AIM to ߧ∩H♠H䎀
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude_56013 View Post
There is no way that I can even begin to get into your head about why. That's why I didn't write some big philosophical and religious post to you. You don't seem like a Christian, so I'm not going to explain your ignorance as to why. If you know what the Upside Down Kingdom is, you'd know why you are making yourself sound like a complete jerk.
It's not ignorance it's math. 85% have health coverage. 15% don't have health coverage. It makes no sense whatsoever to penalize the 85% that have health coverage.

Instead of a government regulated health plan why not make mandatory guidelines for the insurance providers to accept anyone and not have laws to discriminate against people with say pre existing conditions. Sure they will have to pay more because they already have a condition but they won't be denied.

I wouldn't expect a philosophical or religious defense because you can't defend via a philosophy or religious belief. Were talking facts here and the fact is 85% are just fine with the way things are.

This whole idea is ridiculous. That's like saying 85% of the world is fine with a highway speed of 65mph. The other 15% are only capable of running 30mph. So instead of saying find another route we will just reduce everybody's speed to 30mph.

And finally yes I'm a Christian and probably one of the nicest people you would meet out and about. If I see someone having a problem I'm typically the first person there to help them out. If I see someone broke down on the road I'm that guy that stops to make sure everything is okay and help them out. You attack my faith and beliefs just because I don't agree with your point of view. I've given completely plausible reasons to why this doesn't make any sense. I have yet to see a good counter point.
ߧ∩H♠H䎀 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 07:25 AM   #55
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,004
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Just because every job that you've ever worked in doesn't include healthcare that is not to say that there are not jobs out there that do not include healthcare.

Also, as I said in a previous post, (though perhaps not in this thread)... it's not just the lazy that don't have a job, (and hence don't have healthcare). or who can't afford healthcare.
there are many reasons why a person might not have a job, or might have fallen on financial difficulties, (e.g accident, divorce, bereavement, having kids, loosing their job due to recession etc etc etc).


You say that $21 a month isn't much, to someone who perhaps only earns $100 a month, that's a fifth of their wages. -which is a substantial amount.

look at the numbers,

we'll simplify the numbers for a moment, (but they are scaled exactly).

assume the population is 100.
85 people in the population have healthcare and this costs $20 a month.
15 people don't. (15 * $20 = $300)

the 85 people will subsidise the 15 who can't afford that healthcare
$300/85 = $3.52

(the actual figures are with a population of 300,000,000 people)
255,000,000 people have healthcare at $20 a month
45 million do not have healthcare insurance.
this leave nine hundred million that needs to be funded by the two hundred and fifty five million, and still works out at $3.52 per month...

You're saying that you get good healthcare coverage for $20 a month...
are you really baulking so much at paying $3.52 so that everyone can receive the same kind of healthcare that you get???

of course, the estimate is actually that between 10 and 15% of the population aren't insured.
so if it were only 10% that's actually $2.22 to find from each person who is currently insured.

I can't believe that you're so annoyed at having to pay somewhere between $2.22 and $3.52
(1.38 - 2.19 GBP).

so that everyone in the US regardless of their circumstances can get healthcare.

FURTHER to this, it'd probably actually work out to be less than that in any case. since the current poor (people with very low income jobs) would also pay a percentage of their own state healthcare, though this might only be $1 (but again that's between a half and a third of the deficit so a substantial amount), and even people currently on welfare would likely see that they would make some contribution, (perhaps only $0.50 a month, but again that's 1/4 to 1/6th of the deficit)...

assume for a moment that there are equal numbers of those that are poor and those that don't work, (for whatever reason) and are on welfare.

using the numbers that I just suggested these people will be paying $0.75 of the $2.22 - $3.52 deficit themselves...

lets crunch those numbers again...

85% people of the 100% population pay $20 a month.
15% of the 100% pay $0.75 a month.
(total poor need $300 - $11.25 = 288.75 /85 = $3.39)

or the 10% figures...
90% of 100% pay $20
10% of 100% pay $0.75
(total poor need $200 - 7.5 = $192.50 / 90 = $2.13).


so assuming that the poor subsidise even the tiniest amount of their own healthcare, ($1 per month for those employed, $0.5 per month for those not, and assuming equal numbers of employed and unemployed...).

you're now only looking like you'll pay $2.13 - $3.39 extra per month to get 100% of the population to get the same healthcare benefits that you enjoy now.


now comes the real question.

what insurer...
having thought about this, I've actually decided that a state run insurance behemoth is a terrible idea. the private healthcare companies that already have the links to hospitals and already have frameworks for documentation and cover in place. (to decide the adequate levels of cover).

making it a government run department will just incur massive set up costs, that are needless considering that there already exists enterprise with the systems in place...

ALSO...
now that you've given everyone in the states good private healthcare insurance you can now save money...

I've no idea how much is spent subsidising medicare/medicade BUT.

now that everyone has 'private' healthcare you can immediately scrap both of those schemes.
__________________
I didnt fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 03:42 PM   #56
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,629
Send a message via AIM to ߧ∩H♠H䎀
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post
Just because every job that you've ever worked in doesn't include healthcare that is not to say that there are not jobs out there that do not include healthcare.

Also, as I said in a previous post, (though perhaps not in this thread)... it's not just the lazy that don't have a job, (and hence don't have healthcare). or who can't afford healthcare.
there are many reasons why a person might not have a job, or might have fallen on financial difficulties, (e.g accident, divorce, bereavement, having kids, loosing their job due to recession etc etc etc).


You say that $21 a month isn't much, to someone who perhaps only earns $100 a month, that's a fifth of their wages. -which is a substantial amount.

look at the numbers,

we'll simplify the numbers for a moment, (but they are scaled exactly).

assume the population is 100.
85 people in the population have healthcare and this costs $20 a month.
15 people don't. (15 * $20 = $300)

the 85 people will subsidise the 15 who can't afford that healthcare
$300/85 = $3.52

(the actual figures are with a population of 300,000,000 people)
255,000,000 people have healthcare at $20 a month
45 million do not have healthcare insurance.
this leave nine hundred million that needs to be funded by the two hundred and fifty five million, and still works out at $3.52 per month...

You're saying that you get good healthcare coverage for $20 a month...
are you really baulking so much at paying $3.52 so that everyone can receive the same kind of healthcare that you get???

of course, the estimate is actually that between 10 and 15% of the population aren't insured.
so if it were only 10% that's actually $2.22 to find from each person who is currently insured.

I can't believe that you're so annoyed at having to pay somewhere between $2.22 and $3.52
(1.38 - 2.19 GBP).

so that everyone in the US regardless of their circumstances can get healthcare.

FURTHER to this, it'd probably actually work out to be less than that in any case. since the current poor (people with very low income jobs) would also pay a percentage of their own state healthcare, though this might only be $1 (but again that's between a half and a third of the deficit so a substantial amount), and even people currently on welfare would likely see that they would make some contribution, (perhaps only $0.50 a month, but again that's 1/4 to 1/6th of the deficit)...

assume for a moment that there are equal numbers of those that are poor and those that don't work, (for whatever reason) and are on welfare.

using the numbers that I just suggested these people will be paying $0.75 of the $2.22 - $3.52 deficit themselves...

lets crunch those numbers again...

85% people of the 100% population pay $20 a month.
15% of the 100% pay $0.75 a month.
(total poor need $300 - $11.25 = 288.75 /85 = $3.39)

or the 10% figures...
90% of 100% pay $20
10% of 100% pay $0.75
(total poor need $200 - 7.5 = $192.50 / 90 = $2.13).


so assuming that the poor subsidise even the tiniest amount of their own healthcare, ($1 per month for those employed, $0.5 per month for those not, and assuming equal numbers of employed and unemployed...).

you're now only looking like you'll pay $2.13 - $3.39 extra per month to get 100% of the population to get the same healthcare benefits that you enjoy now.


now comes the real question.

what insurer...
having thought about this, I've actually decided that a state run insurance behemoth is a terrible idea. the private healthcare companies that already have the links to hospitals and already have frameworks for documentation and cover in place. (to decide the adequate levels of cover).

making it a government run department will just incur massive set up costs, that are needless considering that there already exists enterprise with the systems in place...

ALSO...
now that you've given everyone in the states good private healthcare insurance you can now save money...

I've no idea how much is spent subsidising medicare/medicade BUT.

now that everyone has 'private' healthcare you can immediately scrap both of those schemes.
Well first of all thank you for taking the time to come up with a decent response root. If I’m not mistaken you’re from the U.K. correct? I’m only asking because I don’t think you fully understand how health coverage works in America. Your numbers would be great if that was in fact the case for everyone but it isn’t and those numbers are arbitrary.

This is a simple breakdown of how things work. Say a new employer decides he wants to offer health coverage to his employee’s. He meets with several different insurance providers and they give him a quote based on the amount of employee’s and what coverage he wants them to have. So after they have this information the insurance company can give them a quote on insurance. After which the employer decides they would like their service and sign a contract.

Now this amount can vary on the type of insurance you want as well as the deductibles and co pays that you pay. For example for prescriptions you pay a percentage & for emergency rooms you pay a percentage of that bill. This is the deductible in which you are responsible for. Now the lower the deductible and co pay the more that insurance is going to cost. You can offset that to some degree by the amount of people you’re trying to insure. Now we reach the point where I said I pay roughly $21 a month. You negate to figure in the price that my company pays for the insurance. My $21 is a very small percentage of the total bill per month. I’ve worked at companies where I’ve paid close to $200 a month for my health coverage. This is just my portion again not factoring what my employer is paying. I can’t be sure on the total amount being paid but the thing is it will be different for every company.

So when you factor my quote you’re negating the total cost. You’re also overlooking the variables associated with insurance. You can’t just come up with a simple figure based on my example alone. Doing so would be a fallacy. That does not speak for every company nor does it take in to consideration all the other companies as well as what they offer and the deductibles.

It’s not a simple matter of saying I’ll pay around $2.13-$3.39 extra a month to get everyone insured. If that were the case of course I’d be for it. But the cost is going to be much higher than that. Not to mention with government regulation they would be telling me where to go and who I can see. Now with government run health care am I still going to have to pay deductibles and co pays for using the insurance? If its run like this the only way I would even consider being for it is if there were no associated fee’s. But I can guarantee that they will still want us to pay deductibles and co pays when we use the insurance.
ߧ∩H♠H䎀 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 06:26 PM   #57
Golden Master
 
sniperviper21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,438
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

seems it passed.
sniperviper21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 07:09 PM   #58
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,629
Send a message via AIM to ߧ∩H♠H䎀
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniperviper21 View Post
seems it passed.
This vote is still irrelevant. It's not anywhere close to actually being passed in yet. They have several stages so I think this stage was to discuss and amend items in the bill.

Edit:

Quote:
The legislation now moves to a Senate-House conference to reconcile their two bills.
ߧ∩H♠H䎀 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 04:33 AM   #59
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,004
Default Re: Senate back in session; vote expected on health care bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by ߧ∩H♠H䎀 View Post
Well first of all thank you for taking the time to come up with a decent response root. If Im not mistaken youre from the U.K. correct? Im only asking because I dont think you fully understand how health coverage works in America. Your numbers would be great if that was in fact the case for everyone but it isnt and those numbers are arbitrary.

This is a simple breakdown of how things work. Say a new employer decides he wants to offer health coverage to his employees. He meets with several different insurance providers and they give him a quote based on the amount of employees and what coverage he wants them to have. So after they have this information the insurance company can give them a quote on insurance. After which the employer decides they would like their service and sign a contract.

Now this amount can vary on the type of insurance you want as well as the deductibles and co pays that you pay. For example for prescriptions you pay a percentage & for emergency rooms you pay a percentage of that bill. This is the deductible in which you are responsible for. Now the lower the deductible and co pay the more that insurance is going to cost. You can offset that to some degree by the amount of people youre trying to insure. Now we reach the point where I said I pay roughly $21 a month. You negate to figure in the price that my company pays for the insurance. My $21 is a very small percentage of the total bill per month. Ive worked at companies where Ive paid close to $200 a month for my health coverage. This is just my portion again not factoring what my employer is paying. I cant be sure on the total amount being paid but the thing is it will be different for every company.

So when you factor my quote youre negating the total cost. Youre also overlooking the variables associated with insurance. You cant just come up with a simple figure based on my example alone. Doing so would be a fallacy. That does not speak for every company nor does it take in to consideration all the other companies as well as what they offer and the deductibles.

Its not a simple matter of saying Ill pay around $2.13-$3.39 extra a month to get everyone insured. If that were the case of course Id be for it. But the cost is going to be much higher than that. Not to mention with government regulation they would be telling me where to go and who I can see. Now with government run health care am I still going to have to pay deductibles and co pays for using the insurance? If its run like this the only way I would even consider being for it is if there were no associated fees. But I can guarantee that they will still want us to pay deductibles and co pays when we use the insurance.
yes, I am from the UK, unfortunately it's difficult to say exactly what goes out of my wages.

104,000,000,000, between 60,000,000 population, (though ~20% don't work at the moment so only 48,000,000 pay)
104bn / 48m = 2166 per year = 180 per month to be made of employee, and employer (as our employers also pay a part of it).

NI figures look higher on employee wage slips since NI also goes to pay pensions, at least that's how it should work... what actually happens is that we're just taxed twice, income tax, and national insurance all goes into the same general taxation pot. you should watch out for that too...

I don't see how it couldn't boil down to such simple numbers in the US either... scaling the number of the population, and scaling the total cost of the service you'll end up with the same rough ball park figure of 180 (or $287 USD) to be made each month... which is kind of the same as you've said there.

I imagine that if you've had employer subsidised schemes that also pay towards the scheme, but it's cost you $200 a month then we're actually looking at about the same budget figures anyway...

basically, what we can say is that assuming that the number of hospital admissions stays the same, (which it won't, but we'll ignore the social factors for now).
your increased premiums to be made by employee and employer will go up by the same amount in percentage points as the amount of population percentage that currently don't have healthcare...

(so between 10 - 15%) as I pointed out, for you personally, that's an extra 2 - 3 dollars a month.

(the social factors I mentioned above are the people having self delivered home births, the people just not going to the doctors/dentists etc, when it's essentially free for all you can almost guarantee that they will go to the doctors).

for the whole policy, (assume $200 PM) that's a total increase of 20 - 30 dollars per month... (per person) to subsidise the poorer...

the government would, or at least should have massive bargaining powers, and should be able to negotiate a contract relatively cheaply,

you say big business can negotiate a contract, then were talking about a few thousand staff...
what insurance company isn't going to bend over backwards to have 30, million new clients, all state subsidised so there will never be a missed payment etc...

Out of interest, does anyone know what the current total budget expenditure is on current healthcare schemes, (Medicaid etc)... -something that I'm hearing doesn't really work anyway...

how much of that money saved is going to make a dent into the total cost of this new package??




I won't go into the fact that you're paying only $20 because your company is subsidising you, they are probably getting a tax break for that as that'll come from pre-profit margins, possibly counting as though it were some kind of charitable donation. and so are paying less tax.
so your subsidised healthcare may be coming at the cost to the nation at the moment anyway...
yet you would seek to deny that privileged to others?

the reason that I won't go into that too deeply other than saying "this MIGHT be what's happening" is that other than inspecting your books, your companies books, their accounting procedures and their tax returns we'll just never know!
__________________

__________________
I didnt fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0