TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Vote for Obama because he'll give you a phone....



The scary parts are that A) she breeds, and B) she votes.

and...she talks (if you can call it that) REALLY LOUD....

I don't have the solution, but there has got to be a way to provide medical care for people who cannot possibly pay for private insurance at the current rates. Like most everyone else, I'm worried that government controlled medical care will be a horrible nightmare....show me ANY government agency that operates efficiently in an economical manner...it doesn't exist, because the nature of a bureacracy is to continously expand itself and it's budget requirements. Knowing hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year on government programs that primarily benefit government agencies themselves, it would seem that some of that could be funneled into some form of catastrophic coverage for all citizens. As it stands now, the hospitals cannot collect anything on over 50% of their billings, so when those of us who HAVE insurance coverage go into the hospital our policies are billed at 3 to 4 times the actual cost to a cash customer, to try and make up the difference. One of my sisters is a doctor, and she deals with it daily...for example, her husband needed to have a basic CT scan a couple of months ago and she sent him to a radiology clinic she uses...they sent her a bill for $1250...she called them and asked "what's the CASH price?... I'm not filing an insurance claim"....they told her $250. If I could get a reasonably priced...possibly government subsidized...catastrophic coverage, available to all citizens, so that I didn't have to worry about my family having to liquidate all my assets and being left with nothing, I would gladly pay for all routine care out of pocket. My cousin had a stroke earlier this year and while in the hospital for that, developed a blood clot in his leg which caused massive swelling and a clot broke off and went to his heart requiring open heart surgery and more complications...short story is he was in hospital for almost a month...total bill to date $600,000+...luckily he has good coverage, but if not, they would be wiped out...a lifetime of work and savings gone in a few weeks. If he had no insurance and no assets, he would still have received treatment...the hospital just wouldn't get paid for it. Oh, and if he should leave state employment he is now "uninsurable" except for the Risk Pool, which is very expensive. As I said, I don't have a simple answer, but it just doesn't seem right that those who work hard, play by the rules, and aquire assets over the years are required to put it all at risk, while others never pay for insurance, never save for retirement, and risk nothing.

RoyGBiv wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:I've got a serious question for those opposed to paying for health insurance or being taxed for that decision.
I understand that Plan A is to never have a serious illness or injury, not pay any taxes, or health insurance, etc..
But if misfortune should strike, what is Plan B? Who pays the bill?

This is an excellent question, but it's framed in a way that might cause folks to try and answer you in a narrow way...

A broader question would be "How do you fix healthcare so that fewer folks are without coverage?"
And as we all know, the answer is complicated... But, let me try and answer your question with some healthcare "fixes" and we'll see how it goes..

- Allow ad-hoc, industry, professional, trade and other groups to band together to purchase healthcare insurance as a group. Currently, for example, TAM, who appears to be self employed (making assumptions here) cannot join together with a "web developer" trade group and go to the insurance companies to purchase a group plan. TAM must apply for coverage as an individual. This is insurance over-regulation at it's worst. It impacts entrepreneurship severely. Who will take the risk to start a business if you can no longer afford health insurance because you lost your buying power? Stupidity.
-There are MYRIAD other regulatory changes that would make insurance cost less. I'll let you ponder that and move on.

YMMV

FYI...Texas passed a law allowing for small businesses to form collective groups for the purchase of health insurance which would allow them to qualify for "large group" status several years ago. You can look up various trade groups on the Insurance Commission's website and it sounds like a great idea...but the problem is the insurers won't recognize the groups and apparently there's no enforcement division to do anything about it. They will recognize "small business groups", but not large ones...this is a HUGE distinction, because the biggest advantage of "Large Group status is that the insurer cannot decline coverage on anyone, and everyone in the group pays the same rate. Small Groups are subject to underwriting and they can exclude you for ANY reason. I have had coverage for over 10 years with the same insurer. I originally switched to them because they did not refuse pre-existing conditions and 2 of my employees had had heart attacks previously. I sold that business in 2005 but retained my group coverage even though it now consisted only of my family (3 people). In 2008, they started rating each small group individually rather than collectively as they had in the past. My premiums went up the maximum allowed by law 4 years running (supposedly 20%) but each year I had to raise the deductible to try and pay for it, so it's a case of comparing apples and oranges. In 2005, I was paying $759 per month for my wife, son and myself w/0 deductible. I've gone to $500 ded, then $1500 ded., then $2500, and now at $5000 ded. and my current premium is $1135 p/mth. This was due to me having 3 heart stents in 2006, then gallbladder and adrenal gland removal surgery 3 months later. They explained that because my group consists of only 3 people the dollar amount of those claims on per capita basis puts it in top risk category. They offer individual plans that are NOT rated like the small groups and I applied for a separate policy on my wife and switched my son's coverage to an insurer provided by his grad school. They declined coverage on her and the reason they gave was that she was involved in a train wreck in 1988 and suffered from back pain and vertigo for several months...with no further treatment for the last 20 years! My plan had been to get her on individual plan at about $300p/mth and change my coverage under my group plan to $10,000 ded. for about $400 p/mth and save $400/mth. overall. When they declined coverage, I checked into the co-op deals, but because they won't write coverage on them except as "small groups" which are still subject to underwriting, The lowest premium I was offered (by 5 different insurers) was $1786 p/mth w/ $1500 deductible. So basically, my current insurer has me locked up like a prisoner...I can't afford to not have coverage because I have assets to protect for my family, and I have no place to switch to.

RoyGBiv wrote:Fiscally conservative, small government, socially libertarian (not liberal/progressive, libertarian) ....
When somebody with some gravitas starts that party, I'll be joining.
Until then, the last one on that list ceases to exist without the first two being under control, so, that's how I find myself voting.

I see the potential to completely marginalize the Democratic party, by showing their members how financial responsibility and small government gives people the freedom to pursue their own social agenda freely, without demanding that the government step in and make decisions/limits for people. In the same way the Tea Party has changed the GOP, a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian faction can revolutionize the Donkey party.

You want to promote your personal views on birth control? You have every right to do so, but don't ask the government to pass laws. Gather a group of like minded people, raise YOUR OWN money, create a social campaign to convince people your way is the right way. Don't try to legislate your views onto my moral compass.

I went to a few Tea Party meetings in 2010. I'm 110% on board with Tea Party fiscal/small-government conservatism, but I felt completely alienated by the religious justifications that members wanted to make for just about everything. I can easily justify small government and fiscal responsibility with economic facts. Using the Bible to push people into a particular viewpoint is shortsighted and leaves MANY people who would otherwise support you out in the cold, IMO. Religion is most certainly under attack from the Left, and I'm near the front of the line to say the attacks are both wrong headed and eroding the morality of our country. But my justifications are factual, not biblical.

Way OT... Sorry..

Vote for Mitt.!!!
A vote for anyone else is a vote for the European-style, big-government, Socialism, because only Mitt can beat Obama. There is no 3rd party candidate in this election that has even a snowballs chance in hades of beating BHO... And that's a fact.

Well stated ! I'm fiscally conservative, but socially take more of a "live and let live" philosophy and try not to look down my nose at someone else because they "sin" differently than I do. I don't need or want the government legislating moral issues....might as well ask a coyote to guard the goats. I've always liked a quote by Mark Twain: "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress....but wait, I repeat myself."