Health Care - Harry Reid phone call - Thanks again for reading
gray asphalt
inviting me to listen and ask questions of my Senator,
Harry Reid, about health care.
I didn't get in to ask any of the 6 questions I had but
one thing was interesting: He was evasive about allowing
individuals being allowed to buy insurance from out-of-
state providers ... he made it sound like that would be
going against state insurance controllers ability to reign
in bad practices by health insurance providers ...
but ... he has been quoted as wanting to eliminate the
exemption of health insurance providers from the exemption
from anti-trust legislation. One of Nevada's own senators,
McCannan, was apparently at least partially responsible
for the exemption, and Reid is calling for its repeal.
So, is the anti-trust exemption related to the ban on buying
insurance from out-of-state companies ... does it have anything
to do with the anti-trust exemption?
We, on this NG seem to assuming that it does.
Moderate
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg9Gm.10$%U3...@newsfe21.iad...
Why do you need Federal anti-trust legislation for companies that are not
allowed to sell across State lines?
dene
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae998cf$0$26492$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Good question. This whole anti-trust stuff seems like a red herring. On
paper, it's a good idea that New Jersey Life can peddle policies in Wyoming,
but what if they come in, collect premium, and skedaddle when the claims
start rolling in? Most State laws prevent this practice.
-Greg
BigSlicer
More non-golf related posting fron the RSG TITPB
------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
gray asphalt
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7ku3q7F...@mid.individual.net...
The point of was that apparently "across state lines"
and "anti-trust" legialation are not related.
Dave Lee
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nxmGm.66$D83...@newsfe11.iad...
What the McCarran-Ferguson Act really did was to give control of anti-trust
issues to the states. So there really is a relationship between 'across
state lines' and McCarran-Ferguson. Since Federal anti-trust governs
activity across the states, this really is almost inevitable given the
structure of healthcare insurance in the US. If a local chain of grocery
stores was conspiring to fix prices down to drive out other stores, and then
raise prices when the competition was gone, this would be a state issue, not
a federal one.
And despite most headlines, this is an "Insurance Industry Exemption" not a
"Healthcare Insurance Industry Exemption".
dave
BigSlicer
Thanks Dave for your non-golf related post. Your contribution to the
signal-to-noise ratio here , is that what it is all about Dave?
Do you not comprehend that this newsgroup is REC SPORT GOLF? Likewise, do
you not comprehend that there are hundreds of other places where you could
post to your hearts desire about non-golf related topics?
______________________________________________________________________�
Dave Lee
"BigSlicer" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:eobpr6x...@recgroups.com...
I'll make you a deal. I'll give you $1 for every OT: post that I have made
in the past year. And you give me $1 for every OT: post that you have made
in the last month! And keep in mind that meta-comments are OT: comments.
dave
gray asphalt
"BigSlicer" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:eobpr6x...@recgroups.com...
If you set your mail reader to "Group by conversation",
you can avoid health care threads.
gray asphalt
"Dave Lee" <Dave...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
news:-b6dnZwP0vtDZXTX...@earthlink.com...
Are you saying that if the govt. repealed McCarran-Ferguson
the insurance industry would be able to sell across state lines?
... that if MF were repealed that it would not be easier to start
a competitive business that offered better rates, by a private
company springing up to compete?
Senator Reid supports repealing MF but does not support
being able to buy health insurance across state lines ... How
is that possible?
Dave Lee
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v1qGm.25$3P2...@newsfe09.iad...
>
> "Dave Lee" <Dave...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:-b6dnZwP0vtDZXTX...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>
SNIP
>> What the McCarran-Ferguson Act really did was to give control of
>> anti-trust issues to the states. So there really is a relationship
>> between 'across state lines' and McCarran-Ferguson. Since Federal
>> anti-trust governs activity across the states, this really is almost
>> inevitable given the structure of healthcare insurance in the US. If a
>> local chain of grocery stores was conspiring to fix prices down to drive
>> out other stores, and then raise prices when the competition was gone,
>> this would be a state issue, not a federal one.
>>
>> And despite most headlines, this is an "Insurance Industry Exemption" not
>> a "Healthcare Insurance Industry Exemption".
>>
>> dave
>
> Are you saying that if the govt. repealed McCarran-Ferguson
> the insurance industry would be able to sell across state lines?
>
> ... that if MF were repealed that it would not be easier to start
> a competitive business that offered better rates, by a private
> company springing up to compete?
>
> Senator Reid supports repealing MF but does not support
> being able to buy health insurance across state lines ... How
> is that possible?
>
No - just that MF is consistent with the perspective that regulation of the
insurance industry is a under state control. Since most insurance companies
cross state boundaries, there is (also) a logical federal interest here. I
can see how you could go either way. But since insurance rates and rules are
a 'by state' thing, state control seems to me to be the most logical
approach - but that doesn't make federal involvement obviously wrong.
dave
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Oct-2009, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> Good question. This whole anti-trust stuff seems like a red herring. On
> paper, it's a good idea that New Jersey Life can peddle policies in
> Wyoming, but what if they come in, collect premium, and skedaddle when the
> claims
> start rolling in? Most State laws prevent this practice.
If life, auto, home insurers can do so why not health?
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point of was that apparently "across state lines"
> and "anti-trust" legialation are not related.
The operative word is FEDERAL; you can't apply FEDERAL laws to those not
conducting interstate commerce.
--
bill-o
dene
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4aea7cb2$0$26431$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Because if an unethical health insurer splits, it forces the policyholders
to look for another plan. That's fine if you're healthy. Difficult if
you're not.
If these factors are dealt with via reform laws, then conceivably it could
open the door to more competition. However, any out-of-state insurer is
faced with the same issues the local/domiciled ones face (cost of care,
etc.), so it's difficult for me to believe they will generate lower premiums
unless it's a bait and switch scheme.
I've read that the profit margin of health insurance companies is 3%. I
know for certain that a smaller company I represent filed a 0% profit with
the state of Oregon. It's hard for me to believe that company from a
different state will do any better.
-Greg
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>I've read that the profit margin of health insurance companies is 3%. I
>know for certain that a smaller company I represent filed a 0% profit with
>the state of Oregon. It's hard for me to believe that company from a
>different state will do any better.
Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
included in the mandated coverage.
Now, if I could buy my health insurance from any state, I could avoid
paying for acupuncture because most states do not mandate that
acupuncture be covered.
The ideal situation would be that there would be no mandates at all.
Each person could choose the coverage that they want.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
>effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
>the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
>provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
>even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
>donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
>included in the mandated coverage.
Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
bad to this.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
>people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
>benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
>populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
>coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
>bad to this.
Another example is the famous case where an infant was refused
insurance for being too fat. Getting on the Today show got this
reversed.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
>>effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
>>the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
>>provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
>>even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
>>donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
>>included in the mandated coverage.
>
>Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
>people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
>benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
>populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
>coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
>bad to this.
If you charge low risk people too much for coverage, they wont buy it
and who can blame them. Forty-three percent of the uninsured in the
US could afford to buy health insurance but don't. Most of these
people are young singles. Providing cheap coverage for the young
encourages them to be in the system.
Community ratings create a situation where low risk (young & healthy)
people are charged more than their fair share in order to pay for the
high risk (sick & old) people who are not paying their fair share.
Here's an excellent article from the WSJ on the effects of CR on
health insurance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461482860007734.html
dene
"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dl3ne5l45mhb7kb9h...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:12:43 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
> >>effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
> >>the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
> >>provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
> >>even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
> >>donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
> >>included in the mandated coverage.
Yep. Same thing happened in Washington, which is a key reason why ind.
coverage is 20% higher than Oregon.
> >Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
> >people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
> >benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
> >populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
> >coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
> >bad to this.
Very true, Howard.
> If you charge low risk people too much for coverage, they wont buy it
> and who can blame them. Forty-three percent of the uninsured in the
> US could afford to buy health insurance but don't. Most of these
> people are young singles. Providing cheap coverage for the young
> encourages them to be in the system.
Encourages....yes....but a hammer is still needed, especially if guaranteed
issue insurance is going to be law.
Hor...@net.net
>
>Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
>effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
>the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
>provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
>even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
>donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
>included in the mandated coverage.
I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
can't you buy out of state insurance?
Vote for Palin-Ahhnold in 2012.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
Hor...@net.net
>
>Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
>people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
>benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
>populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
>coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
>bad to this.
I can go to a car dealer and get the kind of car I want. All kinds of
people want different kinds of cars. The manufacturers and dealers
can handle this. The insurance companies can't?
Vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
> >effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
> >the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
> >provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
> >even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
> >donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
> >included in the mandated coverage.
>
> Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
> people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
> benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
> populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
> coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
> bad to this.
This is done with other forms of insurance, why is health insurance any
different? When I was young I was in a high risk group for auto
insurance and I had pay a very high premium for auto insurance. Also,
when I was skydiving and I wanted to get life insurance I had to pay
extra to be covered.
Women will get pregnant and require more medical care, shouldn't they
pay more for medical insurance? If no, why not.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
>>people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
>>benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
>>populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
>>coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
>>bad to this.
>
>If you charge low risk people too much for coverage, they wont buy it
>and who can blame them. Forty-three percent of the uninsured in the
>US could afford to buy health insurance but don't. Most of these
>people are young singles. Providing cheap coverage for the young
>encourages them to be in the system.
Yep. But nations decide to share the cost of roads and parks and
defense, having all taxpayers pay for them instead of letting
consumers choose which they will pay for.
How do they determine "could afford to buy health insurance"? Is it
a choice between renting a small apartment and buying health insurance
and buying a house without health insurance? Or keeping a coffee
house open trying to start one's own business without health insurance
vs working for a large business with health insurance? Lots of gray
area here.
Howard Brazee
>I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
>have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
>the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
>can't you buy out of state insurance?
States can restrict interstate commerce.
Hor...@net.net
wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:17:38 -0500, Hor...@net.net wrote:
>
>>I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
>>have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
>>the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
>>can't you buy out of state insurance?
>
>States can restrict interstate commerce.
Yes. But that doesn't answer the question, dumbass.
Vote for Palin-Ahhhhnold in 2012.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>How do they determine "could afford to buy health insurance"? Is it
>a choice between renting a small apartment and buying health insurance
>and buying a house without health insurance? Or keeping a coffee
>house open trying to start one's own business without health insurance
>vs working for a large business with health insurance? Lots of gray
>area here.
An extensive study of the uninsured was done by two researchers from
Baruch College, City University of New York for the Employment
Policies Institute.
They used the cut off of 2.5 times the poverty level of income to
determine if someone is voluntarily uninsured.
This is an exhaustive study but well worth reading.
One of the findings that might surprise you is the amount of health
care that is provided to the uninsured. In Canada, the rate of
screening for cancer in women using Mammogram's and Pap Smears tests
is around the same as for uninsured American women and well below the
rate for insured American women. In the US uninsured men aged 40/64
are twice as likely to have had a PSA test than a man in Canada. This
is one reason that the cancer survival rate is higher in the US
compared to Canada. It also dispels the myth that the uninsured are
without health care.
"When it comes to cancer screening, 80 percent of insured
women ages 40/64 had a mammogram within two years of
the interview; and 87 percent when the period of receipt is
extended to 5 years.
That compares to 49 percent of uninsured women who had a mammogram
within two years and 65 percent when the period is within 5 years.
However, those screening rates are relatively high even for uninsured
women when compared with screening rates in Canada, a country with
universal health coverage. The Canadian health survey reports that 65
percent of Canadian women ages 40/69 had a mammogram within the past 5
years, the same percentage as uninsured women in the U.S.
When it comes to Pap Smears, Canadian women also have about the same
rate of screening over the past five years as uninsured women in the
U.S. (80 percent), although those rates are below those of
insured American women, among whom 92 percent were
screened.
Among U.S. men ages 40/64, 52 percent of those
with insurance were screened for prostate cancer with a PSA
test within the past 5 years, compared to 31 percent for men
who are uninsured. (In Canada, the comparable percent is
16 percent.)
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>One of the findings that might surprise you is the amount of health
>care that is provided to the uninsured. In Canada, the rate of
>screening for cancer in women using Mammogram's and Pap Smears tests
>is around the same as for uninsured American women and well below the
>rate for insured American women. In the US uninsured men aged 40/64
>are twice as likely to have had a PSA test than a man in Canada. This
>is one reason that the cancer survival rate is higher in the US
>compared to Canada. It also dispels the myth that the uninsured are
>without health care.
I haven't subscribed to that myth. The big question is - how much
does it cost the rest of us to care for the uninsured now compared to
how much it will cost with universal insurance.
Some people don't care. As long as they don't need to acknowledge
that they are paying for the poor, they are willing to pay more. It's
not about the money for them.
Howard Brazee
>>>I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
>>>have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
>>>the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
>>>can't you buy out of state insurance?
>>
>>States can restrict interstate commerce.
>
>Yes. But that doesn't answer the question, dumbass.
You implied that we can't because the federal government can't
restrict interstate commerce. I responded that states can, which
would seem to me to be an obvious refutation of your premise. That's
all I intended to do, I'm not being paid to answer your questions. If
I'm a dumbass it is for other reasons than not answering your
question.
I don't know whether I can buy out of state insurance or not. It's
not an issue for me, so I didn't look it up. Apparently your state
has regulations - ask your legislatures why if you're so curious.
dene
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:qn3oe5h66qv75duja...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:12:43 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote this crap:
>
> >
> >Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
> >people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
> >benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
> >populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
> >coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
> >bad to this.
>
>
> I can go to a car dealer and get the kind of car I want. All kinds of
> people want different kinds of cars. The manufacturers and dealers
> can handle this. The insurance companies can't?
Apples and oranges. If an insurance company received hundreds from a pool
of insured but pays out thousands, how long can they stay in business?
-Greg
dene
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2555fec26...@news.giganews.com...
You know the old liberal mantra. We are all the same.....
Idaho has one of the smartest insurance laws out there. Guaranteed issue,
but if you have pre-existing conditions without continuous coverage or want
more benefits, like you described, you pay more.
Obsese and smokers should pay more....period.
-Greg
Don Kirkman
<1qnoe5l45mhb7kb9h...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:41:04 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>How do they determine "could afford to buy health insurance"? Is it
>>a choice between renting a small apartment and buying health insurance
>>and buying a house without health insurance? Or keeping a coffee
>>house open trying to start one's own business without health insurance
>>vs working for a large business with health insurance? Lots of gray
>>area here.
>An extensive study of the uninsured was done by two researchers from
>Baruch College, City University of New York for the Employment
>Policies Institute.
"The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) is one of several front
groups created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm
owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic
beverage and tobacco industries. While most commonly referred to as
EPI, it is registered as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization under the
name of Employment Policies Institute Foundation. In its annual
Internal Revenue Service return, EPI states that it "shares office
space with Berman & Company on a cost pass through basis." [1]
"[1] Employment Policies Institute Foundation, "Return of
Organization Exempt from Income Tax", 2005, Statement 12."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Hor...@net.net
wrote this crap:
>>>>I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
>>>>have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
>>>>the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
>>>>can't you buy out of state insurance?
>>>
>You implied that we can't because the federal government can't
>restrict interstate commerce.
Huh? What? Nothing of that was implied. I distinctly stated that
the Constitution says that the federal government cannot restrict
interstate commerce.
Therefore anyone should be able to buy out of state insurance.
>I responded that states can, which
>would seem to me to be an obvious refutation of your premise. That's
>all I intended to do, I'm not being paid to answer your questions. If
>I'm a dumbass it is for other reasons than not answering your
>question.
You did not answer the question, dumbass.
>I don't know whether I can buy out of state insurance or not. It's
>not an issue for me, so I didn't look it up. Apparently your state
>has regulations - ask your legislatures why if you're so curious.
I certainly won't get a straight answer from you, dumbass.
Vote for Palin-Ahnold in 2012, dumbass.
Hor...@net.net
wrote this crap:
>>
>> I can go to a car dealer and get the kind of car I want. All kinds of
>> people want different kinds of cars. The manufacturers and dealers
>> can handle this. The insurance companies can't?
>
>Apples and oranges. If an insurance company received hundreds from a pool
>of insured but pays out thousands, how long can they stay in business?
They have people that calculate these kinds of things. They should be
able to do business as long as they are able.
Vote for Palin-Ahhnold in 2012, dumbass.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
The study's authors.
Dr. June O�Neill is Wollman Distinguished Professor of Economics in
the Wasserman Department of
Economics and Finance and Director of the Center for the Study of
Business and Government, Zicklin
School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York
(CUNY). She is also a Research Associate
of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and an American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) Adjunct
Scholar. She served as director of the Congressional Budget Office,
1995-1999, and chaired the Board of
Scientific Counsellors of the National Center for Health Statistics,
2003-2007. Among her publications is
a recent article written jointly with Dave O�Neill that compares
differences between the U.S. and Canada in
health status, health care and inequality of health outcomes.
Dr. Dave O�Neill is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for the
Study of Business and Government and
an Adjunct Professor of Economics in the Wasserman Department of
Economics and Finance, Baruch College,
CUNY. Before joining the Center Dr. O�Neill had a long career as an
economist in both the academic and
policy sectors, working at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric
Research and at private policy institutes
and the federal government in Washington D.C. including the U.S.
Bureau of the Census and the General
Accounting Office. He has published in the fields of labor economics,
health and welfare policy.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:24:04 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>One of the findings that might surprise you is the amount of health
>>care that is provided to the uninsured. In Canada, the rate of
>>screening for cancer in women using Mammogram's and Pap Smears tests
>>is around the same as for uninsured American women and well below the
>>rate for insured American women. In the US uninsured men aged 40/64
>>are twice as likely to have had a PSA test than a man in Canada. This
>>is one reason that the cancer survival rate is higher in the US
>>compared to Canada. It also dispels the myth that the uninsured are
>>without health care.
>
>I haven't subscribed to that myth. The big question is - how much
>does it cost the rest of us to care for the uninsured now compared to
>how much it will cost with universal insurance.
I would assume that universal coverage would add to health care costs.
The uninsured do not get as much health care as the insured, so having
insurance should increase the amount of health care they receive. In
addition, some of the health care received by the uninsured comes in
the form of free care provides by charities. Universal coverage would
remove the need for the charity work.
Hor...@net.net
wrote this crap:
In other words, she never had a real job. Probably a token female.
>Dr. Dave O�Neill is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for the
>Study of Business and Government and
>an Adjunct Professor of Economics in the Wasserman Department of
>Economics and Finance, Baruch College,
>CUNY. Before joining the Center Dr. O�Neill had a long career as an
>economist in both the academic and
>policy sectors, working at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric
>Research and at private policy institutes
>and the federal government in Washington D.C. including the U.S.
>Bureau of the Census and the General
>Accounting Office. He has published in the fields of labor economics,
>health and welfare policy.
In other words, he never had a real job. Another government
monkey,and paper shuffler.
I'm sure these people do their research on the papers that other
government monkeys publish.
assim...@borg.org
On 30-Oct-2009, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> Because if an unethical health insurer splits, it forces the policyholders
> to look for another plan.
yeah and your point is?
--
bill-o
BAR
says...
I pay more for my homeowners insurance for replacement cost of the
structures and their contents. Some people just insurance the structure
for a specific value and they never have that value increased over time.
Do I like paying more? No. Do I like knowing that if my house burns to
the ground that it will be rebuilt completely for an out of pocket cost
to me of $1,000 for my deductible.
A couple of years ago I had a tree in my yard fall on my fence that
abutted my house. It cost me $1,100 dollars to have the tree removed and
the fence repaired. Did I make a claim against my homeowners insurance,
hell no! It didn't make sense for $100 and the ding on my homeowners
insurance record for have a claim for a lousy $100.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>I haven't subscribed to that myth. The big question is - how much
>>does it cost the rest of us to care for the uninsured now compared to
>>how much it will cost with universal insurance.
>
>I would assume that universal coverage would add to health care costs.
>The uninsured do not get as much health care as the insured, so having
>insurance should increase the amount of health care they receive. In
>addition, some of the health care received by the uninsured comes in
>the form of free care provides by charities. Universal coverage would
>remove the need for the charity work.
It could be. But the uninsured often go to emergency rooms for care
that the rest of us get at our physicians' offices and clinics. Urban
hospitals charge significantly more than suburban hospitals - and we
pay for it.
BigSlicer
Who cares about your homeowners insurance?
What does your homeowners insurance have to do with golf? This is a golf
newsgroup, just in case you did not know.
_______________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Howard Brazee
>A couple of years ago I had a tree in my yard fall on my fence that
>abutted my house. It cost me $1,100 dollars to have the tree removed and
>the fence repaired. Did I make a claim against my homeowners insurance,
>hell no! It didn't make sense for $100 and the ding on my homeowners
>insurance record for have a claim for a lousy $100.
Medical insurance would be cheaper if we treated it as insurance.
Maybe not as cheap as if we eliminated the insurance aspect
altogether, but it would be cheap. Insurance is for catastrophes,
not for maintenance.
The down side is that people with communicable diseases might not get
treated, and some easy diseases could turn serious if untreated.
Jack Hollis
I can't disagree with you on this, but who else, other than academics
and public servants, would do this type of work? Anyone with even a
slight sense of ambition or curiosity would rather shoot themselves.
However, we do need such people. I'm reminded of C. E. Nobel who
spent decades determining the meaningfulness of nonsense syllables.
Now we know that SUL is slightly more meaningful than PAQ.
BAR
says...
My golf clubs are covered by my homeowners insurance when they are at
home and when they are at the course. But, when transporting my golf
clubs to and from the course they are covered by my automobile
insurance.
Instead of whining about non-golf content, asshole, why don't you start
posting some golf content yourself? All we have seen from you is quite a
bit of whining and crying about others behavior.
Be the example, BigSlicer. Until we see some golf content from you, you
can shut the fuck up.
dene
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4aed2903$0$28797$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
My point is that if you acquire a medical condition during the time you were
covered with that plan, then it's difficult within the present system to
qualify for another plan.
-Greg
Don Kirkman
<1qnoe5l45mhb7kb9h...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:41:04 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>>How do they determine "could afford to buy health insurance"? Is it
>>a choice between renting a small apartment and buying health insurance
>>and buying a house without health insurance? Or keeping a coffee
>>house open trying to start one's own business without health insurance
>>vs working for a large business with health insurance? Lots of gray
>>area here.
>An extensive study of the uninsured was done by two researchers from
>Baruch College, City University of New York for the Employment
>Policies Institute.
>They used the cut off of 2.5 times the poverty level of income to
>determine if someone is voluntarily uninsured.
>
>This is an exhaustive study but well worth reading.
>
>One of the findings that might surprise you is the amount of health
>care that is provided to the uninsured. In Canada, the rate of
>screening for cancer in women using Mammogram's and Pap Smears tests
>is around the same as for uninsured American women and well below the
>rate for insured American women. In the US uninsured men aged 40/64
>are twice as likely to have had a PSA test than a man in Canada. This
>is one reason that the cancer survival rate is higher in the US
>compared to Canada. It also dispels the myth that the uninsured are
>without health care.
It also dispels the myth that insuring the involuntarily uninsured
will significantly raise the cost of health care.
"In this paper, we analyze data from a number of surveys
to measure three aspects of the uninsured problem.the
relative numbers and characteristics of those who are
voluntarily and involuntarily uninsured; the amounts
and types of medical services they obtain; and the size
of the differential in health outcomes associated with
lack of insurance. Our results have implications for a
number of issues related to the formulation of policies
that would extend coverage to the uninsured and to the
costs of those policies. One is that it is primarily the involuntarily
uninsured that would require a net addition
to government spending to attain acceptable levels of
health services. Moreover, because the involuntarily insured
already utilize publicly funded medical resources,
the cost of extending insurance coverage to them is likely
to add less to public expenditures than the total cost of
the coverage. Thus, our estimates of the number of uninsured
who are involuntarily uninsured, and the cost of
the health services they are likely to receive, are important
ingredients for estimating the net cost of insurance
reform.i.e., the additional amount of resources that
would be required to provide medical services to those
who currently lack access due to their low incomes."
http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf, p. 10
>"When it comes to cancer screening, 80 percent of insured
>women ages 40/64 had a mammogram within two years of
>the interview; and 87 percent when the period of receipt is
>extended to 5 years.
>That compares to 49 percent of uninsured women who had a mammogram
>within two years and 65 percent when the period is within 5 years.
>However, those screening rates are relatively high even for uninsured
>women when compared with screening rates in Canada, a country with
>universal health coverage. The Canadian health survey reports that 65
>percent of Canadian women ages 40/69 had a mammogram within the past 5
>years, the same percentage as uninsured women in the U.S.
>When it comes to Pap Smears, Canadian women also have about the same
>rate of screening over the past five years as uninsured women in the
>U.S. (80 percent), although those rates are below those of
>insured American women, among whom 92 percent were
>screened.
>Among U.S. men ages 40/64, 52 percent of those
>with insurance were screened for prostate cancer with a PSA
>test within the past 5 years, compared to 31 percent for men
>who are uninsured. (In Canada, the comparable percent is
>16 percent.)
>http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf
ISTM the only relevance of comparing US with Canadian health care
programs would be if the US were contemplating using the Canadian
model, which seems quite unlikely.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
gray asphalt
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae998cf$0$26492$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>
> "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg9Gm.10$%U3...@newsfe21.iad...
>> Today, I got a call from a conference call company
>> inviting me to listen and ask questions of my Senator,
>> Harry Reid, about health care.
>>
>> I didn't get in to ask any of the 6 questions I had but
>> one thing was interesting: He was evasive about allowing
>> individuals being allowed to buy insurance from out-of-
>> state providers ... he made it sound like that would be
>> going against state insurance controllers ability to reign
>> in bad practices by health insurance providers ...
>>
>> but ... he has been quoted as wanting to eliminate the
>> exemption of health insurance providers from the exemption
>> from anti-trust legislation. One of Nevada's own senators,
>> McCannan, was apparently at least partially responsible
>> for the exemption, and Reid is calling for its repeal.
>>
>> So, is the anti-trust exemption related to the ban on buying
>> insurance from out-of-state companies ... does it have anything
>> to do with the anti-trust exemption?
>>
>> We, on this NG seem to assuming that it does.
>
> Why do you need Federal anti-trust legislation for companies that are not
> allowed to sell across State lines?
I don't know. Why do they have an anti-trust exemption
if they don't need one anyway?
gray asphalt
"Dave Lee" <Dave...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
news:eoudnXcTAsPJ33fX...@earthlink.com...> news:v1qGm.25$3P2...@newsfe09.iad...
>>
>> "Dave Lee" <Dave...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>> news:-b6dnZwP0vtDZXTX...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>
> SNIP
>
>>> What the McCarran-Ferguson Act really did was to give control of
>>> anti-trust issues to the states. So there really is a relationship
>>> between 'across state lines' and McCarran-Ferguson. Since Federal
>>> anti-trust governs activity across the states, this really is almost
>>> inevitable given the structure of healthcare insurance in the US. If a
>>> local chain of grocery stores was conspiring to fix prices down to drive
>>> out other stores, and then raise prices when the competition was gone,
>>> this would be a state issue, not a federal one.
>>>
>>> And despite most headlines, this is an "Insurance Industry Exemption"
>>> not a "Healthcare Insurance Industry Exemption".
>>>
>>> dave
>>
>> Are you saying that if the govt. repealed McCarran-Ferguson
>> the insurance industry would be able to sell across state lines?
>>
>> ... that if MF were repealed that it would not be easier to start
>> a competitive business that offered better rates, by a private
>> company springing up to compete?
>>
>> Senator Reid supports repealing MF but does not support
>> being able to buy health insurance across state lines ... How
>> is that possible?
>>
>
> No - just that MF is consistent with the perspective that regulation of
> the insurance industry is a under state control. Since most insurance
> companies cross state boundaries, there is (also) a logical federal
> interest here. I can see how you could go either way. But since insurance
> rates and rules are a 'by state' thing, state control seems to me to be
> the most logical approach - but that doesn't make federal involvement
> obviously wrong.
>
> dave
Now that makes sense. But it isn't that federal oversight
might make sense ... but that it is specifically exempted.
Why?
gray asphalt
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4aea7d14$0$30005$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 29-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The point of was that apparently "across state lines"
>> and "anti-trust" legialation are not related.
>
> The operative word is FEDERAL; you can't apply FEDERAL laws to those not
> conducting interstate commerce.
>
> --
> bill-o
Again, then why does the insurance industry have
a specific exemption from anti-trust laws? They
don't need it so why is it there? And to repeal it
would not hurt them, since they don't need it, so
why not repeal it, even if just for appearances
sake?
Dave Lee
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fqmHm.40517$Zz7....@newsfe25.iad...
I have no idea (well past my knowledge level here) - but it happened a VERY
long time ago (1940's IIRC).
dave
dene
Where does it say that insurance company cannot sell across State lines?
There are several who do. It's just a question of whether the insurer wants
to, i.e. acclimate to the state's insurance law.
-Greg
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>ISTM the only relevance of comparing US with Canadian health care
>programs would be if the US were contemplating using the Canadian
>model, which seems quite unlikely.
>--
>Don Kirkman
In many respects, Medicare and Medicaid is the Canadian model.
assim...@borg.org
On 1-Nov-2009, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> My point is that if you acquire a medical condition during the time you
> were
> covered with that plan, then it's difficult within the present system to
> qualify for another plan.
this is not a sufficient reason to prohibit selling insurance across state
lines.
--
bill-o
dene
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4aee5cda$0$28794$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Agree....and FTR, it's not prohibited now. Many insurers have plans in
different states.
-Greg
Don Kirkman
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:39:24 -0800, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>>ISTM the only relevance of comparing US with Canadian health care
>>programs would be if the US were contemplating using the Canadian
>>model, which seems quite unlikely.
>In many respects, Medicare and Medicaid is the Canadian model.
But not in all, and therein lies the difference, which is worth
discussing. FWIW, the US established Medicare in 1965, Canada in
1966.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Jack Hollis
wrote:
> FWIW, the US established Medicare in 1965, Canada in
>1966.
And they took the name from Canada.
Don Kirkman
And even if we assume they did (the timing seems to weigh against it,
or it could even be a mere coincidence, since it's a warm fuzzy name)
that says very little about similarities and differences, given the
governmental systems of the two countries.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>And they took the name from Canada.
>
>And even if we assume they did (the timing seems to weigh against it,
>or it could even be a mere coincidence, since it's a warm fuzzy name)
>that says very little about similarities and differences, given the
>governmental systems of the two countries.
In Canada, the government has a taxpayer funded system that pays
mostly private hospitals and doctors for their services. Medicare and
Medicaid does the same.
This is in contrast to, let's say, the NHS in the UK where the
government owns the hospitals and clinics and most of the doctors work
directly for the NHS. The US has a system that is pretty much the
same as the NHS for veterans.
gray asphalt
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7l6hstF...@mid.individual.net...
I do not know ... and that seems to be a problem ... that
we can be talking about this for months and most of us
aren't sure of the facts ... I should say I'm not sure of the
facts even though this is important to me. Medias fault?
Misinformation? Just the same old bs?
gray asphalt
danced around was whether the citizens are going
to get a plan as good as what the Senate, House and
federal employees have...
This was a main point of Ross Perot's plan. It still
makes sense to me.