Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,341 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 110 | 
May 26, 2009, 05:16 AM
 Re: Government waste & healthcare Originally Posted by herring_RN  First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages
Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. http://www.calnurses.org/media-cente...s.html?print=t
The study - http://www.calnurses.org/research/pd...study_2009.pdf -Unemployment within health care is minimal. Sectors of the economy that really need a stimulus package would be...construction, infrastructure, real estate, things like that.  Good links though. Thanks. Important spillover effects from health care would be manufacturing, which I'm sure could use a boost.  | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 111 |
May 26, 2009, 11:00 AM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by Agrippa What gives me hope however is that Obama is wicked smart. Scary smart. Whats even more encouraging is that he's surrounded himself with other very intelligent people. And Im sure they've thought about this move, their countermove, etc.
.
This is an unbelieveable statement, IMHO. He's scary alright. Right down to name a number of tax cheats, liars, and who knows what else is still under the rug.
Medicare is poorly managed, plain and simple. That part cannot and should not be blamed on the fact that it insured people over 65. It's a management nightmare.
Why do any of you think the same people running that can do better running an even bigger replica of that?
| | No. 112 |
May 26, 2009, 12:07 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by tntrn Why do any of you think the same people running that can do better running an even bigger replica of that?
And why the blind faith in private industry? Surely we've seen enough since the S&L crisis, the implosions of companies like Enron and WorldCom, Wall Street swindlers from the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milkin to guys like Bernie Madoff (made off with da money, that is), and present financial melt-down to recognize that private industry is not worthy of public trust.
Me, I'll take my chances with a single-payer system administered by a public entity over the offerings of the private insurers any day.
I'll also point out that the only thing keep the insurers from completely screwing people are the GOVERNMENT regulators. Or, do you have enough faith in the free market to believe that the insurance regulators should be abolished?
| | No. 113 |
May 26, 2009, 01:31 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥ And why the blind faith in private industry? Surely we've seen enough since the S&L crisis, the implosions of companies like Enron and WorldCom, Wall Street swindlers from the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milkin to guys like Bernie Madoff (made off with da money, that is), and present financial melt-down to recognize that private industry is not worthy of public trust.
Me, I'll take my chances with a single-payer system administered by a public entity over the offerings of the private insurers any day.
I'll also point out that the only thing keep the insurers from completely screwing people are the GOVERNMENT regulators. Or, do you have enough faith in the free market to believe that the insurance regulators should be abolished?
Government regulation is not going to eliminate people who are bent on screwing other people. Sheesh, some of those same people get elected and some are tapped for very high-up administration jobs, even AFTER they are exposed as tax cheats and liars. Where's the government regulation against that? Based on that alone, the idea that the government is going to fairly and properly and efficiently provide an idyllic health care coverage plan, is laughable.
And I believe that the current insurance situation IS part of a free market. I can choose the plan I want, depending on what I can afford. If I'm unhappy with an aspect of it, I can change it.
| | No. 114 |
May 26, 2009, 01:38 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by tntrn
And I believe that the current insurance situation IS part of a free market. I can choose the plan I want, depending on what I can afford. If I'm unhappy with an aspect of it, I can change it.
You may be able to change your plan through your employer during open enrollment, but you CANNOT choose any plan you want and change plans on the individual market. Since the topic of this thread has been mandating individual health insurance coverage, this is important to point out.
I find this is a common misconception. Many do not realize that individual health insurance companies can decline anyone they wish due to pre-existing conditions and some other factors. Only through a narrow and temporary set of circumstances can someone qualify for guaranteed acceptance under HIPAA coverage (like the plan I could get for $1210 per month). Otherwise, insurance companies have the control and the applicant, the consumer, does not.
Capitalism applied to individual health insurance means insurance companies do NOT compete to insure, you do not have many choices, they will NOT cover your pre-existing conditions, and they compete to avoid anyone with ANY health problems. Insurance companies play the game, canceling large blocks of policies then coming back to your state a few years later, with a new plan and a new name, picking up the healthly applicants again, and rejecting those with pre-existing conditions. It's a profitability game to insurers, and it often leaves consumers WITHOUT choices.
| | No. 116 |
May 26, 2009, 02:10 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by multicollinearity Only through a narrow and temporary set of circumstances can someone qualify for guaranteed acceptance under HIPAA coverage (like the plan I could get for $1210 per month). Otherwise, insurance companies have the control and the applicant, the consumer, does not.
Can you explain what you mean by guaranteed acceptance under HIPAA coverage?
| | No. 117 |
May 26, 2009, 02:18 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing
Let's discuss the impact of state insurance regulators and consumers' rights. The following chart (first column) shows which states have laws in place to require insurers to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?cat=7&ind=353
There may be waiting periods for pre-existing conditions to be covered after obtaining your policy, like six months or a year, but in these five states, eventually the insurer must cover your health problems if you are responsible and pay your premiums. These five states DO give consumers the CHOICES and options to obtain the plan of their choice if they can afford it, and switch to another plan if dissatisfied.
Can anyone guess if these five states are red or blue states? Regulations and legislation have real and tangible effects on the daily lives of citizens.
| | No. 118 |
May 26, 2009, 02:42 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by Jolie Can you explain what you mean by guaranteed acceptance under HIPAA coverage?
The following should not be considered legal, financial, or insurance advice as I am not licensed in all states, and I am not establishing any kind of client-agent fiduciary relationship with any reader of this board. Check with your state insurance department for advice specific to your situation and state of residence. That said:
HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (of 1996). HIPAA has just as much to do with individual health insurance eligibility as it does with patients' privacy. Since HIPAA is federal legislation, it is the same across all states. Read page 2 of this HIPAA-coverage brochure to see eligibility for such plans: http://www.azblue.com/pdfs/health-pl...abilityCvg.pdf
Where the eligibility text refers to Arizona, your state of residence could be substituted due to the federal nature of the law. You've got to be coming off of an employer group health insurance plan, have exhausted all COBRA options, and be within 63 days of ending this coverage, plus more as listed on page 2. It's a narrow and short time-frame to envoke your rights under HIPAA. If you manage to obtain such coverage and later lose that coverage for some reason, for example, your insurer raises the rates to $3000 per month (I've seen that), you move to an area out of the insurance company's service area, or your insurer cancels all their individual plans, your HIPAA rights to guaranteed issue coverage do not continue. It's a one-shot deal during that initial 63 days under certain circumstances.
Keep in mind that HIPAA regulates specific instances where insurers must insure - NOT what the premiums will be under such plans. The premiums for HIPAA coverage are influenced, if at all, by any specific state legislation addressing HIPAA rates. Some states limit premiums for HIPAA compliant plans and some do not. Please take a look at the HIPAA premium rates in my red state. They are on page 5. Gotta love it: $1792 a month for a child under two years old.
|
| 369 members
4,197 guests 4,566
| 1 | | | 12 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Some people will just continue to cling to extreme free market fundamentalism and refuse to learn nothing even after we have all seen the evidence that results from rampant deregulation in the examples above. As if private industry would simply police themselves and everything will be sunshine and roses.
Nursing News