Phew, Canada and all those damn banking Regulations. They say the Canadian Banking is the highest regulated system in the world.
Where did that get us...oh right, we are now hailed as THE BEST SYSTEM and others are COPYING because I think our recession lasted a month or so.
REGULATE THAT...oh did I also forget to tell you that we are also highly profitable and ever growing. Oh, and it was the CONSERVATIVE Governments that implemented ALL THAT REGULATION...know why...they did NOT want the Citizens money to be screwed over which would screw our country over with it.
Funny how when you put your PEOPLE and COUNTRY FIRST how that works out.
HEY! Get to work, China is collecting, your interest payments are piling up.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Obamacare is cheap!
- Thread starter Crude
- Start date
AHEM, uhm that would be that says that.
I predict that the Government can now legally sneak up on your driveway and install a gps tracking device to your car WITHOUT a warrant...OH WAIT, that is already HAPPENING unless you live behind a fence then they need a warrant...cuz sooo many middle class has a gated entrance to their mansions.
Please not the Department of Security by Obscurity is doing to make you FEEL safer.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
AHEM, uhm that would be that says that.
I predict that the Government can now legally sneak up on your driveway and install a gps tracking device to your car WITHOUT a warrant...OH WAIT, that is already HAPPENING unless you live behind a fence then they need a warrant...cuz sooo many middle class has a gated entrance to their mansions.
Please not the Department of Security by Obscurity is doing to make you FEEL safer.
I am not convinced that is true. I'll certainly agree if you can prove it. At any rate, if they want to follow and track you, seems likely they have a reason to do so. Or perhaps the case will be tossed if it is determined that they were not in possession of a proper warrant.
What about tapping your phone or perhaps slipping a micro-bug under your tinfoil hat? Can they tap your phone if the connection is outside? No, I do not think they can.
Bob Maxey
copestag
Android Expert
edit to correct my earlier post:
no case has been taken to the USSC yet......... there have been cases in several states at the state supreme court level......... and theyve been pretty split..... such as NY state has ruled it to be illegal..... whereas Wisc has ruled it to be perfectly fine....... and there have been 2 cases on the Federal level recently with 1 case going each way, for and against..... but none of these cases have been heard by the USSC yet
also edited to add my opinion on warrantless GPS tracking....... while I will agree its a lazy way of doing their job... they arent accomplishing anything via GPS that they couldnt 100% accomplish 100% legally in every case without a GPS........ theres no difference in following your car via a computer or simply driving behind you every place you drive (in which case a warrant would never be required)
as far as the argument only rich people keep their cars behind gates or in garages...... that is one of the weakest arguments you could make.......... do rich people never drive their car anywhere?...if not why do you need gps tracking on it to begin with?...... whats the difference in attaching a GPS device on a poor persons car in their driveway or a rich persons car in a store parking lot? GPS tracking on a vehicle doesnt depend on how much money the driver has
although I agree this crosses a fine line when it comes to allowing the govt to track our every movement...... how much expectation of privacy can you possibly have while traveling in public?
no case has been taken to the USSC yet......... there have been cases in several states at the state supreme court level......... and theyve been pretty split..... such as NY state has ruled it to be illegal..... whereas Wisc has ruled it to be perfectly fine....... and there have been 2 cases on the Federal level recently with 1 case going each way, for and against..... but none of these cases have been heard by the USSC yet
also edited to add my opinion on warrantless GPS tracking....... while I will agree its a lazy way of doing their job... they arent accomplishing anything via GPS that they couldnt 100% accomplish 100% legally in every case without a GPS........ theres no difference in following your car via a computer or simply driving behind you every place you drive (in which case a warrant would never be required)
as far as the argument only rich people keep their cars behind gates or in garages...... that is one of the weakest arguments you could make.......... do rich people never drive their car anywhere?...if not why do you need gps tracking on it to begin with?...... whats the difference in attaching a GPS device on a poor persons car in their driveway or a rich persons car in a store parking lot? GPS tracking on a vehicle doesnt depend on how much money the driver has
although I agree this crosses a fine line when it comes to allowing the govt to track our every movement...... how much expectation of privacy can you possibly have while traveling in public?
mike114
Well-Known Member
1199SEIU to Drop Health Coverage for Workers' Children - Metropolis - WSJ
"The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements."
Hate to say we told you so, but we did.
"The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements."
Hate to say we told you so, but we did.
LaTuFu
Android Expert
It only lasted a month? Did anyone outside Ottawa notice?
Other than Hockey players and Blackberries, there is precious little that I can think of that Canada exports to real economies.
Okay fine. You got me. Shania Twain, John Candy, and Neil Young.
hakr100
Android Expert
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100
The government and all it's mandates and regulations has made the mess of health care delivery that exists right now in the United States.
Fixed.
I would appreciate it if you would not alter my posts to fit your agenda.
LoyalServant
Android Expert
It goes both ways.
Anyone remember when the energy companies in NY were deregulated?
Supermarkets went out of business overnight... some had to shut down their freezers and refrigeration units.
The post of power jumped 10 fold overnight... why?
Because they could do it.
I remember my electric bill hitting $1,000 from around $200 from one month to the next.
There are other industries where deregulation was good and lowered prices.
The problem with healthcare is that you have SO much regulation that there is no competition because there is no room for profit or the market is controlled by one insurer.
In some states insurers have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want.
My opinion on how to fix it:
- Prevent insurers from discriminating against women, a huge problem now.
They love to call pregnancy a pre-existing condition because it 'might' happen. This discrimination is just BS.
- Allow insurers to operate in any state and end this monopoly nonsense.
- Stop allowing the insurers from merging with one another, creating these monopolies.
I think the market will fix itself if this happened.
Anyone remember when the energy companies in NY were deregulated?
Supermarkets went out of business overnight... some had to shut down their freezers and refrigeration units.
The post of power jumped 10 fold overnight... why?
Because they could do it.
I remember my electric bill hitting $1,000 from around $200 from one month to the next.
There are other industries where deregulation was good and lowered prices.
The problem with healthcare is that you have SO much regulation that there is no competition because there is no room for profit or the market is controlled by one insurer.
In some states insurers have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want.
My opinion on how to fix it:
- Prevent insurers from discriminating against women, a huge problem now.
They love to call pregnancy a pre-existing condition because it 'might' happen. This discrimination is just BS.
- Allow insurers to operate in any state and end this monopoly nonsense.
- Stop allowing the insurers from merging with one another, creating these monopolies.
I think the market will fix itself if this happened.
hakr100
Android Expert
Better yet, get rid of health insurance companies altogether, since they add absolutely nothing but additional costs to the provision of health care.
I would appreciate it if you would not alter the facts to fit your agenda.
I agree with your entire post... with the exception of the above statement (parts of it).
When a woman is already pregnant, then it's a pre-existing condition. Getting insurance just to pay for the pregnancy isn't something insurance companies can afford to allow to happen.
Women cost insurance companies more, and insurance companies are justified in charging them a higher rate.
I do agree, that pregnancy shouldn't be considered a pre-existing condition if they weren't pregnant when they started under the insurance.
Yep, and you can pay full price for your health care. Oh wait. Most people can't afford that risk.
hakr100
Android Expert
You're right, let's replace the minute profits made by insurance companies... with the massive government waste.
That is an astounding plan.
LaTuFu
Android Expert
Unfortunately, women age 18-40 and both genders age 55+ are the costliest components of a health insurance population pool. Men cost comparatively little up until middle age, and then tend to have fewer "lingering" maladies. Think of the analogy of a car run for 100,000 miles without an oil change. It might run the entire time, but sooner or later its just going to die. Women tend to have more "lingering" health issues and statistically live much longer than men. So while it sounds evil from the outside, the insurance companies have to account for that actual risk in their premiums, if the system is going to work.
The list of ways to cure the problems are many, but you are 100% spot on that the majority lie with how the insurance companies are allowed to conduct business.
Among the ways that we can reel in costs:
--Forbid insurance companies from taking longer than 30 days to settle a claim. Many companies generate millions each year just from "delay" tactics on claim disbursements.
--Force Health Insurance to return to a "reimbursement" payment model rather than a Third Party payment model. Who cares more about the money coming out of your pocket than you? Nobody. If every patient in America had to deal with the red tape, stall tactic BS that the insurance companies use with Doctors' offices, this problem would be solved overnight. Doctors offices would need 40% less overhead in their practices, which would help with cost reduction. There are 350 (400?) million patients who influence someone with Voting ability in national elections. There are only 7-10 million physicians in this country. They can only complain to Congress so much. Once poor old Aunt Sally (x25 million) writes her Senator to complain about her health insurance company being a jackwagon, you can guarantee there would be new legislation rolling out.
--Force insurance companies to rate groups by community and industry as an aggregate. I work for a small family business. There are 8 people in our health plan. If one of us goes to the Doctor for anything serious, it clobbers the rates for the rest of us, because our "group population" is 8 people. We're a technology company. There are hundreds of thousands of people working in our industry in my state alone. Allow us to be rated together and spread the risk.
Change the way they are allowed to do business. The principle of insurance is valuable and effective. The practice of it in the health insurance industry, unfortunately, is not.
Even "non-profit" organizations must operate at a profit to remain in business. The only entity in our economy that can run at a loss continuously and remain in business is the US Government, and they are bound and determined to test those limits, it seems.
"profit" by definition is not an evil and ugly thing. It is the human motivation behind it that is either good or evil. Unfortunately, most large corporations today are not driven by anything that resembles good stewardship.
LoyalServant
Android Expert
I have personal experience with this because of my wife.
She isn't pregnant.....
However, getting insurance to cover it here is almost impossible.
Only 1 carrier covers it and ONLY after 3 years @ $1,200 a month.
That's over $40,000 and after all that has been paid in, it only pays 80%
The reason: she 'might' get pregnant.
She might get hit by a fracking bus, so what gives?
Insurance without this coverage? $100 a month.
Fair? or fleecing women for no reason?
The problem here is that it's perfectly legal for them to do this to women.
If we wanted to have kids the cost of insurance prices us completely out of it.
Last time I checked one of the natural functions of women was to have children, but your penalized for it.
That's being a little obtuse don't you think? We could compare the percentage of women who get hit by a bus at any point in their life to the number of women who get pregnant at any point in their life...
I think you'll agree, pregnancy is a far more likely medical expense than any other major medical expense a woman could have.
Fair. Pregnancy is hugely expensive. Insurance companies have a vested interest in insuring that women don't enroll in insurance, get pregnant, have a baby, and ditch the insurance immediately after, leaving the other insurance customers to foot the bill for her medical expenses.
And keep in mind... we have three kids, so I'm not speaking from a position of "it doesn't effect me".
That's not a problem. It should be legal to charge customers a higher premium who you KNOW are going to cost you more.
No, the cost of medical care prices you out of it.
You can't afford the medical care to have a child, and you want the insurance company to pay for it instead. You forget that the money they have to pay for your medical care comes directly from your premiums.
So, your problem here is that you think that every insurance company customer should pay more so that you can have your child with a better insurance rate.
No, you aren't penalized for it. You just can't afford it.
LaTuFu
Android Expert
I have personal experience with this because of my wife.
She isn't pregnant.....
However, getting insurance to cover it here is almost impossible.
Only 1 carrier covers it and ONLY after 3 years @ $1,200 a month.
That's over $40,000 and after all that has been paid in, it only pays 80%
The reason: she 'might' get pregnant.
She might get hit by a fracking bus, so what gives?
Insurance without this coverage? $100 a month.
Fair? or fleecing women for no reason?
The problem here is that it's perfectly legal for them to do this to women.
If we wanted to have kids the cost of insurance prices us completely out of it.
Last time I checked one of the natural functions of women was to have children, but your penalized for it.
It sounds like you are trying to purchase an individual health policy. Are you not able to obtain group coverage through an employer?
See my other comments above about the higher risks of women of "childbearing age." You are right, that is one of their natural functions, and that is why the insurance companies have to account for it. It is not cheap for anyone when a child is born. $40,000 is probably less than half of the total price tag for a childbirth today.
hakr100
Android Expert
I have personal experience with this because of my wife.
She isn't pregnant.....
However, getting insurance to cover it here is almost impossible.
Only 1 carrier covers it and ONLY after 3 years @ $1,200 a month.
That's over $40,000 and after all that has been paid in, it only pays 80%
The reason: she 'might' get pregnant.
She might get hit by a fracking bus, so what gives?
Insurance without this coverage? $100 a month.
Fair? or fleecing women for no reason?
The problem here is that it's perfectly legal for them to do this to women.
If we wanted to have kids the cost of insurance prices us completely out of it.
Last time I checked one of the natural functions of women was to have children, but your penalized for it.
If you lived in most Western countries, you would not be facing such a decision. In most of those countries, greed is not the driving factor behind health care insurance.
The private sector contributes but is far from the sole cause of the healthcare mess. Here are some other yet unsolved problems:
- The increased life expectancy gained since the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in the U.S. has simply made the cost of being alive more acute. Generally, it costs most to live in the first few years and the last few years of life. The lengths (costs) we go to staying alive are just higher than economically anticipated.
- Healthcare professionals from basic staff to physicians are in the profession to make money. Few provide healthcare completely for free here in the U.S. That means there is people-centric cost built into healthcare expense. Why does Tylenol cost so much at a hospital? Because it gets burdened with additional costs that come from being administered in a hospital. Take Tylenol yourself, and it's free. Have it given in a hospital, and it's costly. Patients who are able to control their meds ought to be given that opportunity while in the hospital so they can at least save on the little things.
- There is fraud and waste in the system, and many of the areas where there is shouldn't be the problem they are.
- Excessive malpractice awards, costs to doctors, and money spent on court costs hurt us all. Obstetricians leave the practice regularly because they get sued for excess pain during childbirth. Not problems in the birth, but too much pain.
- As a nation (and myself and people close to me included), we're all too heavy. Some estimates are that close to 20% of healthcare is related to excessive weight that shows up in diabetes care, high blood pressure, and heart disease. Seriously, we could all contribute to a giant savings by reducing the size of our food portions by 20-30%. The excess could also be driven towards people who are undernourished.
- Insurance pools often don't work because there are too many people drawing from the pool. We've literally reached a point where too many people are using healthcare and not enough are contributing to it.
- I worked in insurance. I've seen millions spent on people with terminal illness or in non-reversible coma. There is no right or wrong call there about the amount. It's certain though that most cases simply drain the system.
- Why does Tylenol cost $10-20 per pill in a hospit
- There will be less coverage, not more provided by a state-run insurance program. Social security is an example of how the problem will take place. However unlike Soc Sec that had decades of a booming population of contributors to build the fund, healthcare will start out behind the curve and underfunded.
- Taxes will always fall short funding healthcare at the appropriate level. Again, it requires more contributors than users to work. That won't happen.
- The U.S. healthcare system will remain elite in the world up until the point it becomes state-run. Few state-run systems are elite. That's why so many people in other countries see U.S. medicine as the best and last chance, unless it's something not approved as a treatment in this country.
- People who are used to having insurance will continue to lose it. When companies had incentives to provide it to employees, they did and did so to attract and keep employees. Soon, providing that coverage will come with additional taxes/costs so the losers will be the employees. And employees will get a double penalty if Congress continues to push through it's intent to have benefits treated as taxable income.
- Tort reform for malpractice combined with proper oversight of medical professionals. I'd rather have the government spend time stopping bad medicine providers than getting into the delivery path at all.
- Allow people who complete medical school to work off debt in their first position as combined general practice and specialists roles. No reason for people to end up $100k-500k in debt before ever seeing a patient. Putting them in combined GP+ specialist roles meets a market shortfall area not expected to go away.
- Spend more time doing the things that can actually help. Want more, better, and cheaper drugs? Allow the government to sponsor trials and development so that more makers can bring them to market faster. The tradeoff would be much shorter periods where there is only one maker of a drug. In fact, make it impossible for drugs to not be introduced as generics under that system.
- Allow surcharging for uncontrolled, controllable behavior. I often joke that bacon should be more expensive than any of the drugs used to treat heart disease and hypertension and that I'd have lived my life with a little less food consumption if my healthcare plans had a surcharge based on my actual physical health situation. People are more driven to lose weight for high school reunions than to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle because it's better for us and costs less.
Now, off to do P90X .... again.
No... it still requires money to have a child. They just decided a long time ago, that if a poor person wanted to have a child, then the rich people of that country would pay for it.
That's obviously VERY admirable.
hakr100
Android Expert
In most civilized western nations, access to decent health care is not an issue. But it sure is in the good old USA.
While we don't agree 100% on the reasons why... it's close enough that's it's not worth getting into.
I've been told (I don't know how accurate that information is) that the UK has a particularly interesting solution to tort reform.
They have a three judge panel that reviews lawsuits before they go to trial. If a lawsuit is determined frivolous, then it is dismissed before it ever goes to trial. Bring three lawsuits that are frivolous and you are disbarred.
It puts the onus on lawyers to pick cases that are honest and valid cases. It also allows lawsuits of people who have 60 more years left and are seriously handicapped by medical malpractice to get a sum that would support them for the remainder of their life.
Some people need large payouts. We just need to weed out the lawsuits that are frivolous and never need to see the inside of a courtroom.
Awesome idea. We are going to be horribly short of General Practitioners if we implement any kind of universal health care.
If we don't do something to increase the number of GP's we have, then we will go from great health care for some, to horrible health care for everyone.
I would also argue that having the government do independent trials would give us a much more honest assessment of the drugs abilities and detriments. There are too many drugs that have been on the market for years being recalled for bad side effects. We cannot allow drug companies to hide these from us.
I think the drug companies should be required to fund the government study if they want their drugs on the market. The government will run the study, and the drug companies will pay for it, but will have no control over how the money is spent, or who does the actual testing.
I absolutely disagree. If people want to die earlier, then they will save the health care system money. Healthy people who live to a ripe old age cost much more to the health care system than people who die early from cigarettes and obesity.
Having the government attempt to control behavior is a dangerous dangerous thing. It should not be done. Sin taxes should not exist.
Now that they exist and are acceptable... everything deemed bad for us will eventually be taxed to the hilt. About 5 years ago, I started realizing this, and used the example of soda's being taxed in the future. People scoffed at the idea, but now New York is painfully close to implementing Sin taxes on Soda.
I don't want government's or insurance companies deciding whether or not I'm allowed to have steak, or whether I'm required to eat tofu.
I've been told (I don't know how accurate that information is) that the UK has a particularly interesting solution to tort reform.
They have a three judge panel that reviews lawsuits before they go to trial. If a lawsuit is determined frivolous, then it is dismissed before it ever goes to trial. Bring three lawsuits that are frivolous and you are disbarred.
It puts the onus on lawyers to pick cases that are honest and valid cases. It also allows lawsuits of people who have 60 more years left and are seriously handicapped by medical malpractice to get a sum that would support them for the remainder of their life.
Some people need large payouts. We just need to weed out the lawsuits that are frivolous and never need to see the inside of a courtroom.
Awesome idea. We are going to be horribly short of General Practitioners if we implement any kind of universal health care.
If we don't do something to increase the number of GP's we have, then we will go from great health care for some, to horrible health care for everyone.
I would also argue that having the government do independent trials would give us a much more honest assessment of the drugs abilities and detriments. There are too many drugs that have been on the market for years being recalled for bad side effects. We cannot allow drug companies to hide these from us.
I think the drug companies should be required to fund the government study if they want their drugs on the market. The government will run the study, and the drug companies will pay for it, but will have no control over how the money is spent, or who does the actual testing.
I absolutely disagree. If people want to die earlier, then they will save the health care system money. Healthy people who live to a ripe old age cost much more to the health care system than people who die early from cigarettes and obesity.
Having the government attempt to control behavior is a dangerous dangerous thing. It should not be done. Sin taxes should not exist.
Now that they exist and are acceptable... everything deemed bad for us will eventually be taxed to the hilt. About 5 years ago, I started realizing this, and used the example of soda's being taxed in the future. People scoffed at the idea, but now New York is painfully close to implementing Sin taxes on Soda.
I don't want government's or insurance companies deciding whether or not I'm allowed to have steak, or whether I'm required to eat tofu.
In most western "civilized" nations... the only people who care if you steal money from the rich... is the rich.
Here in the US, some of us still care.