BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GTB Performance
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-23-2010, 01:23 PM   #67
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
I read it. Maybe you should re-read. He didn't mention medicaid. He mentioned 'free' coverage....that could come from anywhere. States have their own offerings too you know.

That being said, I guess you don't know what health insurance costs for someone who doesn't have a job that offers it.

Try upwards of $1,200 or more for a family. Sorry but $200 shoes won't be enough to cover it.

Why do you think COBRA exists? Because insurance is affordable?

Medicaid is the fed/state insurance program for the poor. States may have a different name (MediCal...) but they are all part of the federal medicaid program.

I got some quick health insurance quotes for a family of 4 (non-smokers) in different parts of the country and here is what I came up with:

NJ - Horizon Basic and Essential EPO Plan $692/mo

GA - UnitedHealth Saver 80 $382.18/mo

AZ - UnitedHealth Copay Select 70 - 1000 $420/mo

Quite a bit less than $1200/mo.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 01:53 PM   #68
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
I got some quick health insurance quotes for a family of 4 (non-smokers) in different parts of the country and here is what I came up with:

NJ - Horizon Basic and Essential EPO Plan $692/mo

GA - UnitedHealth Saver 80 $382.18/mo

AZ - UnitedHealth Copay Select 70 - 1000 $420/mo

Quite a bit less than $1200/mo.
What kind of policy is that for? A Dog? I bet those plans are so pathetic they aren't even worth it.

Also, if healthcare was that cheap, why on earth would companies be paying nearly 10k a year per worker for health insurance when they could just point them to that and pay much less.

Come on, at least try and make it seem realistic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54H47N20090518
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 01:57 PM   #69
ideliver
Major
 
ideliver's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 E60 M5 & 08 Infiniti QX56
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At the gas station

Posts: 1,232
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 MB S430 SOLD  [0.00]
2003 E46 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
Medicaid is the fed/state insurance program for the poor. States may have a different name (MediCal...) but they are all part of the federal medicaid program.

I got some quick health insurance quotes for a family of 4 (non-smokers) in different parts of the country and here is what I came up with:

NJ - Horizon Basic and Essential EPO Plan $692/mo

GA - UnitedHealth Saver 80 $382.18/mo

AZ - UnitedHealth Copay Select 70 - 1000 $420/mo

Quite a bit less than $1200/mo.
These are for "individual plans"...the thing with individual plans is the "risk" is based on the individual health and pre-existing illnesses can be excluded or coverage denied...so if in good health, the plans are very affordable

My son had rheumatoid arthritis and I cannot get us covered on an individual policy (i even offered to just have his JRA excluded and every carrier in the state denied to write us)...so I am stuck with in an expensive group plan

Think of pricing for individual plans like car insurance...expensive car = high insurance

Compare with "group plans" through your work..these are typically very expensive because of the very diverse risk group...they have to take all comers...no one is denied coverage (as long as continous group coverage)...

So my $5,000 High deductible HSA plan cost my family of 5 $1,000/mo...I pay the first $5k for each individual....this is a group plan through the state medical association...

The problem is...why is health insurance liked to employment (because of wage freezes after WWII)...it's really stupid

McCain had it correct...tax health insurance benefits as income...people would prefer the cash, and then buy their own policies...
__________________
Cars I've owned '76 Chevelle 350 RIP '82 Monte Carlo 350 RIP '82 Mustang 302 RIP '88 Honda CRX RIP '88 Olds Toronado sold '94 Toyota Tercel sold '99 Acura TL sold 2002 Porsche 911 sold 2003 E46 M3 Blk/gr 2006 MB S430 sold Current: 2008 Infiniti QX56 & 2008 E60 M5

ideliver is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 02:41 PM   #70
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

DELETED

Last edited by shpirate87; 03-23-2010 at 07:13 PM.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 02:45 PM   #71
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
What kind of policy is that for? A Dog? I bet those plans are so pathetic they aren't even worth it.

Also, if healthcare was that cheap, why on earth would companies be paying nearly 10k a year per worker for health insurance when they could just point them to that and pay much less.

Come on, at least try and make it seem realistic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54H47N20090518
See the post below, individual plans can be low cost because they can assess the individual's risk. Group plans not so much.

These plans are basic health insurance, 80/20 or 70/30, co-pays, and a deductible. Obviously if you want more then you pay more. One of the biggest problems with our current system is that health insurance is no longer insurance. It is not expected to cover people simply for unexpected expenses. It is expected to cover people for simple office visits and annual physicals. It is like expecting your car insurance to pay for regular servicing, oil changes, brake pads, etc...

We would be much better off with a system independent of employers, high deductible plans with HSA's, and catastrophic coverage.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 02:46 PM   #72
335e92tx
Major
 
335e92tx's Avatar
 
Drives: 07-335e92 - monaco blue
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas

Posts: 1,262
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanE92 View Post
needed starting with law suit reform so the doctors can lower their overhead,


Don't hold your breath on tort reforming offering much. It was passed in texas 5 years ago and there has been no visible changes in office visit costs. Just good marketing is all that took place. Some say malpratice ins went down but it has never shown up in the pockets of any patients.

Quote:
also interstate ins purchase option would improve competition beetween ins companies(low cost).
Word was that those changes would reduce costs by 10 percent and add about 3M people to the insurance rolls. Not adequate by a long shot when their objective was 30M

Last edited by 335e92tx; 03-23-2010 at 03:32 PM.
335e92tx is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 04:28 PM   #73
Echo M3
Major
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY

Posts: 1,431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335e92tx View Post
Don't hold your breath on tort reforming offering much. It was passed in texas 5 years ago and there has been no visible changes in office visit costs. Just good marketing is all that took place. Some say malpratice ins went down but it has never shown up in the pockets of any patients.



Word was that those changes would reduce costs by 10 percent and add about 3M people to the insurance rolls. Not adequate by a long shot when their objective was 30M
You're giving less credit to tort reform than is due. Admittedly, costs have not decreased since caps were placed on malpractice awards. That being said, the decrease in malpractice insurance (~30% decrease) has attracted more doctors to high risk specialties in Texas, like OB-GYN and Anesthesiology - hardly a bad thing.

I've also heard that the trickle-down effect of reduced costs has not hit patients yet since the vast majority of hospital-incurred costs, from defensive medicine (running unnecessary tests to avoid getting sued), have not yet decreased. It's still a mindset that has yet to go away in Texas, and once it does, it's predicted that costs will then fall for the patient.
Echo M3 is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 04:34 PM   #74
solefald
Nigerian Prince
 
solefald's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 F25
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Diego, CA

Posts: 2,171
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
'11 BMW F25  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanE92 View Post
nacionalizing health care has been tried by a number of other countries and it failed everywhere it has been tried
a. Care to show some proof of this statement?

b. Please tell me about all that sub-par "Soviet Union" healthcare.

c. Learn to use paragraphs.
solefald is offline   Vatican City State
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 05:44 PM   #75
hhkim
Lieutenant
 
hhkim's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 335d
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: LA

Posts: 481
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 325xi  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to hhkim Send a message via MSN to hhkim
The best part of the bill is that it makes it easier to provide insurance for people that really need it but cannot afford it. I don't mind spending a few extra dollars supporting a program that HELPS other citizens of the US. And bravo on the fine that is dished out if people don't have health insurance; that way, rates will remain competitive and the people that are paying for health insurance aren't screwed by the people that choose not to buy health insurance.
__________________
MY10 335d: Montego Blue, Oyster/Black Leather, Aluminum Trim, Navi, ZSP with Paddle Shifters, ZCW, Alarm
Order Placed: Aug 15th, In Production: Sept 1st, At Port of Exit & Awaiting Transport: Sept 15th, Sept 16th, At Prep Center: Oct 7th, Released to Carrier: Oct 22nd, Delivered: Nov 11
hhkim is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 09:01 PM   #76
js2000
Private
 
Drives: 2009 BMW m3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Orange NJ

Posts: 72
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
Anyone who doesn't want health insurance is foolish. Your only young and healthy until the minute something bad happens. Then its too late.

I guess the idea of car & home insurance is a waste as well. But I bet you have more than the minimum coverage



Again, this shows me you are scared for no reason. The bill specifically exempts small businesses with less than 50 workers from having health insurance for their workers. But with all the tax breaks you can get, you might do it.

Read the bill before you commit suicide.

For example, while there is a fine for people who don't buy health insurance, there is a provision in the bill that says the IRS can't force any leans against you. It's basically a fake threat. Besides the government is going to subsidize the hell out of it that the only people who couldn't afford are already under the poverty line and probably have medicaid
When the new health care bill kicks in, having a heath insurance does NOT mean you get to see a doctor (promptly).

Its very simple. Without additional MD, nurses, PA etc. to covered the extra 32 million insured Americans, everyone's health care quality decreases. put it in another way, the current number of physicians will have to take care of 32 million more potential patients.

When it takes months to book an appointment to see a doctor, guess where the patient goes? ---> back to the ER and drive up the national health care cost further. we are back to square one.

I have nothing against insuring these additional 32 million Americans.....IF they are the cause of our high health care cost. Since they are NOT the cause, they simply ADD to our skyrocketed cost.

32 million americans=10% population. by insuring these minorities, we sacrifice the majority population. majority=middle class people.

middle class americans will not see much changes to their current healthcare plan other than increases to their tax and a medical expense coverage that decreases to covers only 70% (that means 30% out of pocket). its great knowing that even with pre-existing conditions i can still get covered, but will i be able to pay the deductibles when the medical bill comes back in 6 digits?

as a future MD myself, this policy increases the demand for doctors. this meant i dont have to take this insulting, low-paying health insurance anymore and I will have enough patients to see with a cash-only practice.

so what does this bill really mean to you? think about it.
js2000 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2010, 11:18 PM   #77
Echo M3
Major
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY

Posts: 1,431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by js2000 View Post
When the new health care bill kicks in, having a heath insurance does NOT mean you get to see a doctor (promptly).

Its very simple. Without additional MD, nurses, PA etc. to covered the extra 32 million insured Americans, everyone's health care quality decreases. put it in another way, the current number of physicians will have to take care of 32 million more potential patients.

When it takes months to book an appointment to see a doctor, guess where the patient goes? ---> back to the ER and drive up the national health care cost further. we are back to square one.

I have nothing against insuring these additional 32 million Americans.....IF they are the cause of our high health care cost. Since they are NOT the cause, they simply ADD to our skyrocketed cost.

32 million americans=10% population. by insuring these minorities, we sacrifice the majority population. majority=middle class people.

middle class americans will not see much changes to their current healthcare plan other than increases to their tax and a medical expense coverage that decreases to covers only 70% (that means 30% out of pocket). its great knowing that even with pre-existing conditions i can still get covered, but will i be able to pay the deductibles when the medical bill comes back in 6 digits?

as a future MD myself, this policy increases the demand for doctors. this meant i dont have to take this insulting, low-paying health insurance anymore and I will have enough patients to see with a cash-only practice.

so what does this bill really mean to you? think about it.

Nice analysis. FYI, future MD here myself, which school are you at?
Echo M3 is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 06:12 AM   #78
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by js2000 View Post
When the new health care bill kicks in, having a heath insurance does NOT mean you get to see a doctor (promptly).

Its very simple. Without additional MD, nurses, PA etc. to covered the extra 32 million insured Americans, everyone's health care quality decreases. put it in another way, the current number of physicians will have to take care of 32 million more potential patients.

When it takes months to book an appointment to see a doctor, guess where the patient goes? ---> back to the ER and drive up the national health care cost further. we are back to square one.

I have nothing against insuring these additional 32 million Americans.....IF they are the cause of our high health care cost. Since they are NOT the cause, they simply ADD to our skyrocketed cost.

32 million americans=10% population. by insuring these minorities, we sacrifice the majority population. majority=middle class people.

middle class americans will not see much changes to their current healthcare plan other than increases to their tax and a medical expense coverage that decreases to covers only 70% (that means 30% out of pocket). its great knowing that even with pre-existing conditions i can still get covered, but will i be able to pay the deductibles when the medical bill comes back in 6 digits?

as a future MD myself, this policy increases the demand for doctors. this meant i dont have to take this insulting, low-paying health insurance anymore and I will have enough patients to see with a cash-only practice.

so what does this bill really mean to you? think about it.

There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First, the law does not cover everyone. When the Senate bill was analyzed the CBO said 24 million Americans would still be uninsured by 2019. Second, the idea that uninsured means you need to see a doctor but do not is simply false. Up to a third of those uninsured are young, healthy adults who choose not to be covered and are not in need of a doctor.

This is not to say that this law will be good for doctors, it will be a disaster. The largest cost shifter in the system is not the uninsured but the federal government. More federal involvement in the system will further restrict payments to doctors, increased controls on insurance premiums will limit the ability of the insurance companies to absorb the difference, and doctors will be left holding the bag. I have an old girl friend who is studying bio-chem, she said two of her professors walked into class Monday and told them they all need to think long and hard about the investment in medical school after this.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 06:33 AM   #79
arrutled
Colonel
 
arrutled's Avatar
 
Drives: Olsa
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Mass

Posts: 2,471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
Wow, those are three unbiased pieces you have there.

Here is a bit from the other side. Shame on you if you don't read it.
I forwarded this link to my man at the OMB. I will wait to see what he says about it. I guarantee he knows more than you and me both on this.
__________________

AW 135i w/ blackette, performance short shift kit, BMW alarm, Performance rotors, APEX ARC-8 wheels, Direzza Star Spec 235/275, Dinan stage 3 suspension, M3 wishbones/tension rods/front sway/rear subframe bushings and thats all folks!
arrutled is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 06:39 AM   #80
arrutled
Colonel
 
arrutled's Avatar
 
Drives: Olsa
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Mass

Posts: 2,471
iTrader: (0)

I have another aquaintance who is a hospital director. If by thinking long and hard you mean they can only spend 9 weeks in Belize this year instead of 10. your asking a lot of people to give a shit about that? He might deserve that extra week in Belize and I certainly enjoy tagging along, but his practice could probably use him an extra week as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First, the law does not cover everyone. When the Senate bill was analyzed the CBO said 24 million Americans would still be uninsured by 2019. Second, the idea that uninsured means you need to see a doctor but do not is simply false. Up to a third of those uninsured are young, healthy adults who choose not to be covered and are not in need of a doctor.

This is not to say that this law will be good for doctors, it will be a disaster. The largest cost shifter in the system is not the uninsured but the federal government. More federal involvement in the system will further restrict payments to doctors, increased controls on insurance premiums will limit the ability of the insurance companies to absorb the difference, and doctors will be left holding the bag. I have an old girl friend who is studying bio-chem, she said two of her professors walked into class Monday and told them they all need to think long and hard about the investment in medical school after this.
__________________

AW 135i w/ blackette, performance short shift kit, BMW alarm, Performance rotors, APEX ARC-8 wheels, Direzza Star Spec 235/275, Dinan stage 3 suspension, M3 wishbones/tension rods/front sway/rear subframe bushings and thats all folks!
arrutled is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 07:30 AM   #81
arrutled
Colonel
 
arrutled's Avatar
 
Drives: Olsa
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Mass

Posts: 2,471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrutled View Post
I forwarded this link to my man at the OMB. I will wait to see what he says about it. I guarantee he knows more than you and me both on this.
Here is your answer from the top:

Well, first of all I try not to rely on sources that are as partisan as the heritage foundation - and that goes for liberal think tanks too. The arguments they make aren't very honest.

Unfortunately, this one isn't that honest either. Basically what has happened is the house has passed the senate bill. That bill is now law. Then, the house passed a reconciliation bill amending the senate bill. The reconciliation bill is now awaiting a vote in the senate. This article is assuming that the senate does not pass the reconcialition bill that would fix a lot of problems with the senate bill. It is not very likely that the reconciliation bill doesn't pass.
__________________

AW 135i w/ blackette, performance short shift kit, BMW alarm, Performance rotors, APEX ARC-8 wheels, Direzza Star Spec 235/275, Dinan stage 3 suspension, M3 wishbones/tension rods/front sway/rear subframe bushings and thats all folks!
arrutled is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 07:38 AM   #82
ideliver
Major
 
ideliver's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 E60 M5 & 08 Infiniti QX56
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At the gas station

Posts: 1,232
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 MB S430 SOLD  [0.00]
2003 E46 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrutled View Post
I have another aquaintance who is a hospital director. If by thinking long and hard you mean they can only spend 9 weeks in Belize this year instead of 10. your asking a lot of people to give a shit about that? He might deserve that extra week in Belize and I certainly enjoy tagging along, but his practice could probably use him an extra week as well.
I hope that you realize that many Pediatricians and Family Practioners start in the $120,000/yr range. Many will max out at $150,000.

I don't think that you can afford 9 weeks in Belize at that level of income.

My speciality is traditionally one of the higher paying...I take about 10 days out of the office/yr.

I don't know what you think physicians make...but I suspect that you are WAAAY off...
__________________
Cars I've owned '76 Chevelle 350 RIP '82 Monte Carlo 350 RIP '82 Mustang 302 RIP '88 Honda CRX RIP '88 Olds Toronado sold '94 Toyota Tercel sold '99 Acura TL sold 2002 Porsche 911 sold 2003 E46 M3 Blk/gr 2006 MB S430 sold Current: 2008 Infiniti QX56 & 2008 E60 M5

ideliver is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 07:57 AM   #83
arrutled
Colonel
 
arrutled's Avatar
 
Drives: Olsa
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Mass

Posts: 2,471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ideliver View Post
I hope that you realize that many Pediatricians and Family Practioners start in the $120,000/yr range. Many will max out at $150,000.

I don't think that you can afford 9 weeks in Belize at that level of income.

My speciality is traditionally one of the higher paying...I take about 10 days out of the office/yr.

I don't know what you think physicians make...but I suspect that you are WAAAY off...
yeah I probly am, Wish I made that much though.
__________________

AW 135i w/ blackette, performance short shift kit, BMW alarm, Performance rotors, APEX ARC-8 wheels, Direzza Star Spec 235/275, Dinan stage 3 suspension, M3 wishbones/tension rods/front sway/rear subframe bushings and thats all folks!
arrutled is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 08:00 AM   #84
ideliver
Major
 
ideliver's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 E60 M5 & 08 Infiniti QX56
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At the gas station

Posts: 1,232
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 MB S430 SOLD  [0.00]
2003 E46 M3  [0.00]
EDIT...software led me to double post
__________________
Cars I've owned '76 Chevelle 350 RIP '82 Monte Carlo 350 RIP '82 Mustang 302 RIP '88 Honda CRX RIP '88 Olds Toronado sold '94 Toyota Tercel sold '99 Acura TL sold 2002 Porsche 911 sold 2003 E46 M3 Blk/gr 2006 MB S430 sold Current: 2008 Infiniti QX56 & 2008 E60 M5

ideliver is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 09:21 AM   #85
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrutled View Post
Here is your answer from the top:

Well, first of all I try not to rely on sources that are as partisan as the heritage foundation - and that goes for liberal think tanks too. The arguments they make aren't very honest.
That is laughable coming from the guy who previously provided stories from Ezra Klein and that paragon of objectivity, the NY Times.

Now so that we all can judge the objectivity of 'your OMB guy,' is he a career employee of OMB or a political appointee?

Quote:
Unfortunately, this one isn't that honest either. Basically what has happened is the house has passed the senate bill. That bill is now law. Then, the house passed a reconciliation bill amending the senate bill. The reconciliation bill is now awaiting a vote in the senate. This article is assuming that the senate does not pass the reconcialition bill that would fix a lot of problems with the senate bill. It is not very likely that the reconciliation bill doesn't pass.
The article addresses the law as signed. That is not dishonest. What is dishonest is the method used to pass what is an incredibly flawed piece of legislation. If the legislation had any level of popular support in the country, there would be no need to sign one bill into law and then hope to fix it with a different piece of legislation.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 09:36 AM   #86
js2000
Private
 
Drives: 2009 BMW m3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Orange NJ

Posts: 72
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First, the law does not cover everyone. When the Senate bill was analyzed the CBO said 24 million Americans would still be uninsured by 2019. Second, the idea that uninsured means you need to see a doctor but do not is simply false. Up to a third of those uninsured are young, healthy adults who choose not to be covered and are not in need of a doctor.

This is not to say that this law will be good for doctors, it will be a disaster. The largest cost shifter in the system is not the uninsured but the federal government. More federal involvement in the system will further restrict payments to doctors, increased controls on insurance premiums will limit the ability of the insurance companies to absorb the difference, and doctors will be left holding the bag. I have an old girl friend who is studying bio-chem, she said two of her professors walked into class Monday and told them they all need to think long and hard about the investment in medical school after this.
no, there is a problem with YOUR analysis. illegal immigrants constitute majority of that 24 million uninsured. health care coverage for illegal immigrants are irrelevant to this topic.

"Second, the idea that uninsured means you need to see a doctor but do not is simply false. Up to a third of those uninsured are young, healthy adults who choose not to be covered and are not in need of a doctor."

Second, it is quite obvious that not everyone with health insurance means they would want to see a doctor. if its the other way around, it defeat the purpose of having an insurance. your logic escapes me.

According to your statement, "Up to a third of those uninsured are young, healthy adults who choose not to be covered and are not in need of a doctor".

lets make these healthy 1/3 of middle class to cough up money for this. as young adults they are less likely to be sick, so they will not use the health care system, therefore let them PAY for the healthcare system that can be used by OTHERS with their mediocre salary. if you dont see anything wrong with your own statement, you can not be reasoned.

the new health policy will allow the people with pre-existing condition/dropped from their insurance to be re-insured. to be dropped from the insurance, most likely you have USED UP your cap of $1 MILLION dollars in coverage. to be denied from insurance means you have a pre-existing condition that require LIFE long treatment. any patient in this pool can rack up another $1 million dollar medical bill by THEMSELF easy. people who work in the hospital (like myself) knows how little time is needed for the medical bill to hit 6 digits for the patient in the ICU. this group of people account for 12 million of the 32 million newly insured population.


When you add 32 million people (good handful of them are in poor health) to the health insurance, average joe (middle class people) literally loses access to health care. simple logic, way more potential patients added WITHOUT any new hospitals, extra doctors and extra nurses to even out the care giver-to-patient ratio. under such system you can expect NO increase in such medical personel because if the number of MD increase to match the proportional increase in patients, there would be NO savings and hence defeat the purpose of having an universal health care.

grasshopper, you are naive if you believe this law will be bad for the doctors. even my 8 year-old cousin knows that giving a medical doctor frustration is bad for your health. in case you havent notice this, doctor always come out on top with this kind of healthcare system. how many Canadian/UK/Taiwanese doctors have you heard complaining? how is it possible that medical school remain intensely competitive to enter in these country after all these payment restrictions imposed by the government?

this new system revives the fee-for-service medical practice. when average appointment time closes in on 3 months, there were a surge of people who became willing to pay cash to see a doctor. as you know, this is a downward spiral since the number of MD is fixed. lets say we have 50,000 MDs, and 50% of the MD now reject the medicare because of the reimbursement cuts, that leaves 50% left to take care of the patients in the health insurance pool. when the waiting time doubles, more patients will be selected out because they are willing to pay cash now. this drop the number of doctors available for the patients in the insurance pool further. get my point?

i came from a country that has adapted the universal health care system and I know this downward spirals inside out. Coming from a family of physicians, i can tell you that physician salary literally sky rocketed as if we won the lotto after the reform.

fyi. American Medical Association (AMA) which represents the our nation's doctors' STRONGLY supports this new law. ASK yourself, why would doctors support a law that cut their own salary? afterall grasshoppers like shpirate87 knows its bad for the doctors?
js2000 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 10:58 AM   #87
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by js2000 View Post
no, there is a problem with YOUR analysis. illegal immigrants constitute majority of that 24 million uninsured. health care coverage for illegal immigrants are irrelevant to this topic.
According to the CBO, 8 of the 24 million who remain uninsured 2019 are illegal immigrants so that is only a third of them not the majority. Also to dismiss their presence as irrelevant is absurd as they also utilize health care resources.

Quote:
Second, it is quite obvious that not everyone with health insurance means they would want to see a doctor. if its the other way around, it defeat the purpose of having an insurance. your logic escapes me.
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't your entire analysis premised on the idea that having more people insured will create a greater demand for medical services?

Quote:
lets make these healthy 1/3 of middle class to cough up money for this. as young adults they are less likely to be sick, so they will not use the health care system, therefore let them PAY for the healthcare system that can be used by OTHERS with their mediocre salary. if you dont see anything wrong with your own statement, you can not be reasoned.
You believe it is appropriate for the government to force a healthy young adult to purchase health insurance he doesn't want from a private corporation in order to subsidize the insurance of others? If so, we simply disagree.

Quote:
When you add 32 million people (good handful of them are in poor health) to the health insurance, average joe (middle class people) literally loses access to health care. simple logic, way more potential patients added WITHOUT any new hospitals, extra doctors and extra nurses to even out the care giver-to-patient ratio. under such system you can expect NO increase in such medical personel because if the number of MD increase to match the proportional increase in patients, there would be NO savings and hence defeat the purpose of having an universal health care.
Here is where your assumptions just don't add up. First, this bill will not result in 32 million more people being insured. Census data puts the number of people uninsured at around 45 million. Of those, 12 million are already eligible for medicaid/SCHIP but simply have not enrolled. That brings us to 33 million and the CBO says 24 million of these will remain uninsured by 2019. So we are at 9 million and if we add those already eligible but not covered, we are at 21 million potentially newly insured people.

Would 21 million newly insured people necessarily put an enormous drain on medical resources? Only if you assume that a good portion of these people would suddenly feel the need to see a doctor now that they are insured. As 9 million of them could already get coverage immediately, it is unlikely they will be knocking down the doors now. We have also agreed that a significant portion of this number is made up of healthy young adults who do not need to see a doctor.

Quote:
grasshopper, you are naive if you believe this law will be bad for the doctors...
fyi. American Medical Association (AMA) which represents the our nation's doctors' STRONGLY supports this new law. ASK yourself, why would doctors support a law that cut their own salary? afterall grasshoppers like shpirate87 knows its bad for the doctors?
Let's see what doctors rather than the political leadership of the AMA thinks. The Medicus Firm commissioned a survey entitled, “Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care.” Here is what they found:

62.7 percent of physicians support a targeted, gradual approach to reform and oppose the current comprehensive overhaul.

46.3 percent of primary care physicians feel that “the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”

So much for the AMA speaking for doctors.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-24-2010, 10:59 AM   #88
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by js2000 View Post
no, there is a problem with YOUR analysis. illegal immigrants constitute majority of that 24 million uninsured. health care coverage for illegal immigrants are irrelevant to this topic.
According to the CBO, 8 of the 24 million who remain uninsured 2019 are illegal immigrants so that is only a third of them not the majority. Also to dismiss their presence as irrelevant is absurd as they also utilize health care resources.

Quote:
Second, it is quite obvious that not everyone with health insurance means they would want to see a doctor. if its the other way around, it defeat the purpose of having an insurance. your logic escapes me.
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't your entire analysis premised on the idea that having more people insured will create a greater demand for medical services?

Quote:
lets make these healthy 1/3 of middle class to cough up money for this. as young adults they are less likely to be sick, so they will not use the health care system, therefore let them PAY for the healthcare system that can be used by OTHERS with their mediocre salary. if you dont see anything wrong with your own statement, you can not be reasoned.
You believe it is appropriate for the government to force a healthy young adult to purchase health insurance he doesn't want from a private corporation in order to subsidize the insurance of others? If so, we simply disagree.

Quote:
When you add 32 million people (good handful of them are in poor health) to the health insurance, average joe (middle class people) literally loses access to health care. simple logic, way more potential patients added WITHOUT any new hospitals, extra doctors and extra nurses to even out the care giver-to-patient ratio. under such system you can expect NO increase in such medical personel because if the number of MD increase to match the proportional increase in patients, there would be NO savings and hence defeat the purpose of having an universal health care.
Here is where your assumptions just don't add up. First, this bill will not result in 32 million more people being insured. Census data puts the number of people uninsured at around 45 million. Of those, 12 million are already eligible for medicaid/SCHIP but simply have not enrolled. That brings us to 33 million and the CBO says 24 million of these will remain uninsured by 2019. So we are at 9 million and if we add those already eligible but not covered, we are at 21 million potentially newly insured people.

Would 21 million newly insured people necessarily put an enormous drain on medical resources? Only if you assume that a good portion of these people would suddenly feel the need to see a doctor now that they are insured. As 9 million of them could already get coverage immediately, it is unlikely they will be knocking down the doors now. We have also agreed that a significant portion of this number is made up of healthy young adults who do not need to see a doctor.

Quote:
grasshopper, you are naive if you believe this law will be bad for the doctors...
fyi. American Medical Association (AMA) which represents the our nation's doctors' STRONGLY supports this new law. ASK yourself, why would doctors support a law that cut their own salary? afterall grasshoppers like shpirate87 knows its bad for the doctors?
Let's see what doctors rather than the political leadership of the AMA thinks. The Medicus Firm commissioned a survey entitled, “Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care.” Here is what they found:

62.7 percent of physicians support a targeted, gradual approach to reform and oppose the current comprehensive overhaul.

46.3 percent of primary care physicians feel that “the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”

So much for the AMA speaking for doctors.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST