• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Costs of All the Uninsured

A

Anonymous

Guest
GW- again threatened to veto the revised health insurance plan for lower income children today that was passed yesterday :( - and the Dems are using it to make hay with daily in the media- and will garner a lot of votes over the "children hating, insensitive Republicans", as none of the Repubs have stepped forward with any type of plan to cover many of these folks that this Gazette article talks about-- which ends up costing you- and me- and everybody that purchases insurance or pays out of their pocket for medical care more.... :(

But like Newt has said-- some Repub- any Repub needs to step forward and offer some answers to the problem- and offer a plan- as its already us taxpayers, hospital users, and insurance buyers paying the cost anyway.....


Insured pay for lack of insurance


The cost of covering even a small fraction of the children among America's 47 million uninsured people has a congressional majority at odds with President Bush. Closer to home, Insure Montana, a new program that subsidizes insurance coverage for 5,500 small-business employees and dependents, is struggling with a potential 32 percent premium increase. While the cost of insurance is on Americans' minds, the cost of not being insured should be too.

For example, in the past two years, the amount of charity care provided by Montana hospitals has increased 81 percent, according to the annual survey by American Hospital Association and MHA, An Association of Montana Healthcare Providers. The surveys show that Montana hospitals altogether provided $34.3 million more in charity care in 2006 than in 2004.

Still charity doesn't account for the biggest share of the hospitals' uncompensated care. In 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available), Montana hospitals delivered $77 million in charity care and wrote off $101 million in bad debt. Altogether, that's $178 million in uncompensated care provided by nonprofit, community hospitals in one year. As a group, the hospitals barely covered patient costs with patient revenue, reporting margins averaging less than 1 percent.

The difference between charity care and bad debt often is a matter of patient preference. Many needy Montana folks refuse "charity," yet they cannot afford medical bills for which they have no insurance. Sometimes, those who can't pay have insurance, yet they don't have several thousand dollars to pay the deductible on a bare-bones policy.

Who actually pays for that uncompensated care? In communities with county-owned or district-owned hospitals/clinics, taxpayers provide a direct subsidy. Medicare (think taxpayers again) provides some compensation to hospitals that serve a disproportionately high share of indigent patients. And a chunk of the uncompensated costs are passed along to privately insured people in the form of higher charges that result in higher insurance premiums.

"The percentage of Montana employers offering insurance is unchanged (over the past year) but they are shifting more cost to families," said Steve Seninger, a University of Montana economist who is director of Montana Kids Count and the Bureau of Business and Economic Research. The percentage of Montana children without coverage increased from 14 percent to 16 percent between 2004 and 2007. Seninger's research has estimated that 37,000 Montana children are without insurance.

His preliminary analysis indicates that if all those uninsured Montana children were covered, private health insurance costs would be reduced by $760 a year for a family policy and $310 a year for an individual policy.

"One thing they really overlook is the savings you'll have," Seninger said. In the short term, savings are in insurance premiums. In the long term, savings are in healthier kids who won't have big, expensive problems later in life.

The shifting of costs is a major driver in skyrocketing prices for health care. Public policy should be created to reverse that cost shift for the benefit of those in need and those who pay.
 

Tex

Well-known member
OT, you are totally right on this one.

When some people don't have insurance and go to the hospital, those with insurance end up paying for it through higher premiums.



There are several problems with the insurance and medical industries.

Personally, I don't believe ANY person not having insurance and getting services should have to pay anything more than the minimum that would be charged under the lowest negotiated rate of any other insurance plan.

Often times if you don't have insurance where the insurance plan has negotiated down the costs with the hospital and the doctors, you end up with a bill that is much higher than if one had insurance.

I have looked over a lot of insurance claims and been licensed in 5 states and have friends who manage the claims sections. What hospitals/doctors charge to uninsured can often be much, much higher than those with insurance. They can sick the bill creditors after them just ruin their family.

This should be a law in every state but the insurance commissioners in the states do not look out for consumer's interests as much as they do the insurance industry's interests.


Medical services are very, very inelastic. You don't go unless you need them and you can't shop for price of services (this is a ridiculous argument the republicans bring up---they should demand that hospitals/doctors publish their fees before assuming customers can hold down costs by comparing doctor's fees).



Then you have the case of insurance companies operating in ways to reduce their liability by keeping people in a very small group. When a medical condition comes up, they just increase the rates for that little bitty group. Everyone who can jumps ship and gets another insurance plan. The condition then makes your personal insurance rates go up so much that the purpose of insurance is defeated---sharing risks between pools of people. Then the person with the condition can not get insurance anywhere unless they get it from their employer who is in a large enough group to take in pre existing conditions.

You therefore end up with a society where the uninsured are made up of a lot of uninsurable people. Insurance companies won't take them because of their prior condition and they become uninsured. These people then fall on some sort of govt. program. If they could buy insurance at rates everyone else does and have it cover pre existing conditions, many of them would do it. They can't. The insurance industry will not accept them.

I know the insurance industry's argument of "moral hazard"--that people will not buy insurance until they need it---but in many cases we have gone too far. As you say, the insured will end up paying for those people's emergency needs but those people often lose everything they have and have poor medical care on top. Meanwhile we have health insurance execs making off with tons of money as they figure out how to not pay out claims.

Just for a couple of personal examples, I have had a couple of claims where the insurance company was really only billed $4,000.00 and the billing if we didn't have insurance (from the actual invoice) the cost would have been over $20,000. We had good insurance then so we paid maybe a total of $300. I have had one bill I refused to pay because the doctors said they took my insurance, they really didn't. I refused to pay. They sent the bill collectors etc.... Finally, I sued the bill collector for $500 (the actual claim was maybe $200) and won in small claims court. I then took the money that was owed the doctors office and paid them off.

It is a rotten system.

Sometimes I think God tests us to see how we treat "the least of these".

When it comes to medical care, we have failed as a nation. I would much rather my country spend its money on taking care of these things than wasting it on corruption on a war that was based on faulty intelligence where we had to "trust" the administration because they wouldn't tell the truth and were scared into certain actions.

I think the Dems. are right on this one.

The Republicans are just hypocrites.

Republicans should have to go through what a lot of Americans go through and have to buy their own insurance so they know the issues. Instead, taxpayers pay for their medical insurance. They are riding the gravy train and condemning all those who aren't on it.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
When it comes to medical care, we have failed as a nation. I would much rather my country spend its money on taking care of these things than wasting it on corruption on a war that was based on faulty intelligence where we had to "trust" the administration because they wouldn't tell the truth and were scared into certain actions.

I think the medical care problem in the U.S. is overly exaggerated. It is the sky is falling play of the Libs, much like Global warming and every other thing that is bad or broke in the U.S.

According to the United States Census Bureau, just under 60% of U.S. citizens have health insurance related to employment, 27% have government-provided health-insurance; another 9% purchase health insurance directly (there is some overlap in these figures), and 15.8% (47 million) were uninsured in 2006. An estimated 25 percent of the uninsured are eligible for government programs but unenrolled. About a third of the uninsured are in households earning more than $50,000 annually, who presumably could afford insurance. A 2003 report by the Congressional Budget office found that many people lack health insurance only temporarily, such as between job changes.

Libs thrive on America being broken, if it is broken then they can become elected, take more of our money to fix it in the name of those needing.

Is there problems? Yes? But is is a bigger problem than just providing free medical. We are a big nation and all in all people are cared for here medically as good or better than most any nation in the world. The quality of care is unmatched on the globe. The research, inventions in the medical field are unsurpassed.

Every life can not be saved, every illness can not be cured. In a nation of over 300 million residents are system is not that bad. We have insurance help for low income and anyone that is not low income should sacrafice themselves to provide their own insurance. Maybe it means less cars, less cable TV, less trips to Pizza Hut, but more taxes on those taking care of their families is not the answer for those that choose not to do so.

The sky is not falling, it might be a little cloudy but by no means is it falling.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
It's not a choice for some families to "not take care of their families." Plain and simply at $5.25 an hour families cannot afford to. Insurance premiums keep rising along with the cost of living making it more difficult for even the middle class to make ends meet. With the cost of fuel, insurance premiums rising, and even the cost of a simple gallon of milk on the rise it is putting financial strain on more Americans. My insurance premiums went up $50 a month this year. I'm considering a higher deductible just because I've been lucky enough that my family hasn't met the deductible yet so at this point the health insurance is more of a safety net. I agree those that can should pay for their insurance but the government or some intity needs to be able to put a lid on the cost. Just my opinion. I don't know how families with more then two kids afford their insurance if it isn't provided with their jobs. :???:
 

Tex

Well-known member
That is okay. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Aplus just says it is a conspiracy by the democrats. :roll: :roll: :roll:

He probably touts the mantra that we have full employment--even counting employment that just doesn't pay the bills, including health care.

Policy holders as well as society ends up paying when this happens.

By the way, the Supreme Court bought Wal-Mart's argument that the state of Maryland can not tax Walmart to help pay for the health coverage of its employees the states bear. This is as bad as the illegal alien health care argument.

This is nothing more than a transfer of wealth---to the rich.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Providing affordable Health Care is a "Very Important" issue to 61% of the Republicans and 66% Democrats-- yet I know of no Republican candidate that even wants to talk about it-- and Republican Congressmen act like it is the "kiss of death"- and about have kittens every time the Democrats bring up any type of plan...It was a Bush "compassionate conservative" campaign promise--another that he never moved on- or kept.... :roll:

Democrats have a 51% to 35% advantage over Republicans in the polling- as the folks that will do something and make some form of healthcare reform.

And as this economy worsens in the next 12 months-- pocketbooks tighten while health care/insurance costs keep rising--and Repubs keep sending Billions $ overseas, like it grows on trees-- while refusing to spend anything domestically-- its going to be an even bigger issue for the average citizen...

This may be the reason Republicans look at it with this "kiss of death" attitude-- because their refusals and inaction to take on the issue may be spelling the death of the Repub party in 08...
 

Tex

Well-known member
The leadership of the "republican party" turned from being honest representatives to politicians out for themselves---even at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent.

They and the lemmings that follow this path will fail.

The truth is there and it is coming out.

It is time for the REAL republicans to take back control if there is to be a republican party.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Now to me, Dick Morris is being awful generous-- thinking that GW can think for himself :roll:

But he explains the law-- and the changes-- the way I understood this new law to be...The $80,000 stuff Mike was calling folks liars on doesn't exist anymore- and the highest amount a family of 4 can earn is $60,000 and that is only for those living in a couple of the high cost of living cities/areas-- where even slum rent is measured in the $ thousands...It also required that the applicants have a social security card- checked thru the Homeland Securities computer like they want employers to do to validate they are citizens, and covers adults with children only til a certain age (like the time period so they can finish college-vo tech school - and the time it takes to get a job with insurance afterwards)....

Like Dick says-- the alternative is: it helps Hillary become President- and we get Hillarycare- and this time, thinks to GW and a bunch of neocon Repubs- and the current image they are portraying that they care more for allowing corporate war profiteering, nation building, and war mongering, than they do the home folks or needy kids-- she's going to have a Democrat stacked Congress to pass it for her, about any which way she wants it....
:shock: :(

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 27, 2007
Why Bush Should Sign SCHIP
By Dick Morris FOX News

If Hillary is elected president, one of the first things she will do is reintroduce a cosmetically approved version of her 1993 health care reform proposal. Under the guise of providing coverage for the 45 to 50 million people living here without health insurance, she will destroy our current health care system.

But now that the Democrats, and a few Republicans, have given President Bush a chance to steal her thunder and take away the prime inducement she will use to rally public support for her radical program: the need to cover uninsured children. Bush should seize the opportunity and sign the revised bill the Democrats are about to pass.

When Congress passed the newly expanded program for child health insurance State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) it contained serious flaws which prompted President Bush to veto the bill. The new version the Democrats appear ready to pass corrects many of those flaws and Bush should sign the bill.

The old bill allowed children living in families making up to four times the poverty level -- about $80,000 to be covered. The new legislation drops the cap to three times the poverty level -- about $60,000. The old measure included illegal immigrants. The new one doesn't. The bill formerly covered childless adults. The new one excludes them. The new bill isn't perfect. It should be more narrowly targeted and should exclude adults and focus only on children. But it's pretty good.

Republicans like Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) are backing the bill. Enough Senate Republicans voted for it to override the Bush veto. But, the override fell short in the House. With the revised bill, the calculation is more dicey for the administration -- so they should sign this bill and be done with this issue.

Signing it will remove the major argument for "Hillarycare." Sen. Clinton claims that her program is a narrowly tailored measure to cover the people now living in the U.S. who do not have health insurance. She will say that she'll leave the rest of us alone. But once these new folks, a third of them illegal immigrants, start using our health facilities, the sharp rise in demand will occasion an equally steep increase in prices. Health care rationing will be the inevitable result. Under the socialized medicine program that will follow, Americans, particularly the elderly, would be denied medical care because a federal bureaucrat decides others need it more.

Once she doesn't have the uninsured children to talk about, Hillary will be groping for arguments for her health care overhaul. Bush should make his move and take the kids out of the equation. Then the uninsured Americans about whom Hillary will try to generate national angst will be one-third illegal immigrants, one-third Medicaid eligible families who just don't enroll until they need medical care, and 10 to 20 million adults making more than $60,000 or childless people making $20,000 to $60,000.

They won't generate a whole lot of national sympathy.

One very positive aspect of the new child health insurance bill, is that it finances the health insurance through a 61 cent hike in tobacco taxes. By itself, this measure will cut health care spending, disease, teen smoking, and will raise life expectancy. It will just be inconvenient for the big tobacco interests.

Bush should sign the bill, raise the tobacco tax and take the issue of uninsured children away from the Democrats. And he can do it all with the stroke of a pen.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Once again, the GOP pushes the politics of fear. Instead of positively addressing the issue of health care, which has already reached a majority consensus in the US electorate, the mantra is "give a little so we don't get something worse." Instead of developing a bi-partisan program to bring health care to the uninsured and uninsurable, he is attempting to scare the president and the American public by using emotion laden words like "Hillarycare." The fact is, the GOP is bereft of ideas, is bereft of leaders, and bereft of conscience. If it weren't for the mantra of fear, they would have nothing whatsoever to say.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just like I said-- this article or versions of this are running in every newspaper in the country...Last week it was Baucus who delivered the Dems radio address-- and his was on the same subject--same message--Repubs make war-Dems take care of the little kids....His ads are running hourly on the statewide radio and tv...

Dems don't have to campaign- GW does it for them every time he vetos the bill.....

GW or some Repub has to get off their duff and come up with a compromise childrens healthcare plan- or the Dems will just continue to make minced meat out of them, right up to Nov 08--and then with a major majority control walk in and pass a whole new system--that like Dick Morris says, some folks ain't gonna like....


Dean Lashes Out at GOP Over Health Plan

Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:01 AM


WASHINGTON -- Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Saturday criticized Republicans in Congress for not supporting legislation to expand a popular children's health care program.


"The Republican leaders have made their choice. They want to stay in Iraq and deny our kids health care,"
Dean said in the party's weekly radio address.


He said Republicans support significant borrowing to continue wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but won't support the legislation to increase spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.


President Bush on Monday requested $46 billion to continue the war in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan. The proposal brought to $196.4 billion the total requested for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1.


On Oct. 3 Bush vetoed legislation to add $35 billion over five years to the children's health insurance program. The House failed last week to override the veto.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/howad_dean/2007/10/27/44476.html
 

Tex

Well-known member
This issue is going to be rope (planned by the dems.--Rob Emanuel) that made the noose. The republican leadership is tying it up.
 
Top