logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individu, Insurance for catastrophic individual costs.
Supposn
post Jul 8 2017, 04:07 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals:

Excerpted from Congressman Paul Ryan’s web site. He forwarded a transcript concerning his positions of regarding USA’s healthcare policies; Racine [, WIS] Journal News, Mark Schaaf, July 7, 20217.
“Republicans have proposed the federal and state governments subsidize the cost of care for people in the individual market with catastrophic illnesses, Ryan said. He believes that will make it easier to insure people in those high-risk pools at a more affordable price”.

Paul Ryan’s advocating federal insuring catastrophic medical costs of individuals. That’s a concept that both sides of the political ailse could agree upon.
I’m a proponent for federal acceptsnce of fiscal responsibility for catastrophic medical condition regardless if patients were or were not previously insured. Hospitals must be reimbursed for those extraordinary expenditures.

Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: Jul 8 2017, 04:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
AuthorMusician
post Jul 9 2017, 02:47 AM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



If we have a national catastrophic health insurance, isn't that the same as universal health-care insurance, since virtually anything can result in catastrophic health problems, from swimming in the Gulf off Alabama to driving around? There are pre-existing conditions and conditions that develop as we live. Each and every one of us is in this same boat.

Along with universal coverage must come government oversight of medical charges. Right now the free market is supposed to keep costs low, but that's not happening. Instead, we've got insanely high fees for services and materials without a corresponding increase in treatment effectiveness. Costs vary quite a bit among providers too without any visible reasons why this occurs.

I guess you're expected to shop around as the ambulance hauls you off to the ICU. I find it to be too difficult when unconscious.

But then we need competent government to pull this off, so I'm not expecting a whole lot from what we presently have.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jul 11 2017, 12:38 PM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Catastrophic Healthcare Act proposal:

AuthorMusician, This is my concept of what a federal Catastrophic Healthcare Act should be. The purpose of the proposed Catastrophic Healthcare Act is to reduce the financial consequences of catastrophic medical costs upon legal USA resident or citizens and upon the costs of healthcare insurance plans that contribute to insure them.

I would suppose a federal individual patient’s catastrophic medical expense law would commence on the date when legally “covered healthcare” costs provided on behalf of an individual patient within the duration of that date and the prior 365 days, have attain a legally specified annual amount, (i.e. attained the “catastrophic-amount”).
Federal government upon commencement date is financially responsible for the legally “covered” healthcare costs provided on behalf of an individual patient.
Federal government’s financial-responsibility continues from commencement date until the patient experiences 365 consecutive days within which the legally “covered” healthcare costs provided on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic-amount.

The federal government annually adjusts the catastrophic-amount for the purpose of retaining the amount’s purchasing power.

Medical treatments and procedures that qualify as to be “covered healthcare” are specified by federal laws and regulations.

A legal USA resident or citizen’s entitlement to the benefits due to the Catastrophic Healthcare Act does not require the patient to have been covered by any medical insurance plan.

Respectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jul 11 2017, 02:32 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Without oversight and control of costs, this plan moves from ripping off individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy. Very cool for the Martin Shkreli's in our system, not so great otherwise.

As with the healthcare plan known as Obamacare and invented, fundamentally, by Republicans, the lack of cost containment due to the supposed ability of the free market system to control its own costs is the glaring weakness I see in the proposal. The free market system charges whatever the market supports, and since we all need or will need health care, it's very much like dealing drugs -- except the need is inherent and unavoidable. Built-in addiction, no pushing required. Can't just say no without checking out early (dying).

I do see how the healthcare industry loses when patients are pushed into bankruptcy, and it makes perfect sense that the proposal comes from Republicans. This is the party that made bankruptcy harder to do -- even a little income means you will pay something to creditors.

However, this is not the solution. Universal healthcare coverage with cost containment is. This is an established fact in other developed nations, so there's no need to reinvent this wheel. Just emulate and try to improve on a working system, but first get the working system. For all its faults, the ACA does work, but not as well as it could. It'd work a whole lot better by getting rid of our pharma bros.

BTW, what's catastrophic economically for someone making $25k/yr is a lot less than someone knocking down $250k/yr, which is what a lot of Republicans consider middle-class. Might want to be careful around these types, look more deeply into their underlying motivations. Paul Ryan is more interested in corporate bottom lines than the health of the nation, for example. He might even sincerely believe that transferring uncontrolled healthcare costs onto taxpayers will result in a healthier nation, but he's wrong. However, I don't buy it that he believes anything of the sort. He is like Shkreli, just a whole lot more dishonest about it. Has to be, otherwise the turds don't shine in the moonlight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jul 11 2017, 03:37 PM
Post #5


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 11 2017, 10:32 AM) *
Without oversight and control of costs, this plan moves from ripping off individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy. Very cool for the Martin Shkreli's in our system, not so great otherwise.

As with the healthcare plan known as Obamacare and invented, fundamentally, by Republicans, the lack of cost containment due to the supposed ability of the free market system to control its own costs is the glaring weakness I see in the proposal. The free market system charges whatever the market supports, and since we all need or will need health care, it's very much like dealing drugs -- except the need is inherent and unavoidable. Built-in addiction, no pushing required. Can't just say no without checking out early (dying).

I do see how the healthcare industry loses when patients are pushed into bankruptcy, and it makes perfect sense that the proposal comes from Republicans. This is the party that made bankruptcy harder to do -- even a little income means you will pay something to creditors.

However, this is not the solution. Universal healthcare coverage with cost containment is. This is an established fact in other developed nations, so there's no need to reinvent this wheel. Just emulate and try to improve on a working system, but first get the working system. For all its faults, the ACA does work, but not as well as it could. It'd work a whole lot better by getting rid of our pharma bros.

BTW, what's catastrophic economically for someone making $25k/yr is a lot less than someone knocking down $250k/yr, which is what a lot of Republicans consider middle-class. Might want to be careful around these types, look more deeply into their underlying motivations. Paul Ryan is more interested in corporate bottom lines than the health of the nation, for example. He might even sincerely believe that transferring uncontrolled healthcare costs onto taxpayers will result in a healthier nation, but he's wrong. However, I don't buy it that he believes anything of the sort. He is like Shkreli, just a whole lot more dishonest about it. Has to be, otherwise the turds don't shine in the moonlight.


AuthorMusician, federal catastrophic medical insurance would reduce the financial exposure of medical plans and thus their prices of any medical insurance provided to USA legal residents and/or citizens. It needn’t, but it should directly deal with their insurance plans if they have medical insurance.
It pays insurance providers (who must accept the federal scheduled fees as full payment) for the medical services they provided.
If the patient is (or is not) insured, the extent or the situation of patients’ financial conditions, the affordable care act or any other medical insurance plans may be affected, but they do not affect the operation of this federal catastrophic medical insurance.

Little or nothing within your post is germane to this concept of federal catastrophic medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: Jul 11 2017, 03:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jul 17 2017, 03:07 PM
Post #6


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Supposn @ Jul 11 2017, 11:37 AM) *
Little or nothing within your post is germane to this concept of federal catastrophic medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

So where does the money come from? Might it be federal tax dollars? Will people forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills get out of paying federal tax dollars owed?

Seems to be pretty germane to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jul 19 2017, 01:18 PM
Post #7


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 11 2017, 10:32 AM) *
Without oversight and control of costs, this plan moves from ripping off individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy. Very cool for the Martin Shkreli's in our system, not so great otherwise.

As with the healthcare plan known as Obamacare and invented, fundamentally, by Republicans, the lack of cost containment due to the supposed ability of the free market system to control its own costs is the glaring weakness I see in the proposal. The free market system charges whatever the market supports, and since we all need or will need health care, it's very much like dealing drugs -- except the need is inherent and unavoidable. Built-in addiction, no pushing required. Can't just say no without checking out early (dying).

I do see how the healthcare industry loses when patients are pushed into bankruptcy, and it makes perfect sense that the proposal comes from Republicans. This is the party that made bankruptcy harder to do -- even a little income means you will pay something to creditors.
However, this is not the solution. Universal healthcare coverage with cost containment is. This is an established fact in other developed nations, so there's no need to reinvent this wheel. Just emulate and try to improve on a working system, but first get the working system. For all its faults, the ACA does work, but not as well as it could. It'd work a whole lot better by getting rid of our pharma bros....


AuthorMusician, this thread’s topic’s admittingly too wordy title, “Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals” is overly long and thus its presentation is truncated. Regarding your interjecting the subject of bankruptcy within this thread:
The proposed policy’s purpose is reduction of individuals patients and their medical insurers’ vulnerability to catastrophic financial losses due to unusual and extremely expensive medical expenditures.
Bankruptcy is germane to this topic only to the extent, (as we agree), this proposal certainly would reduce incidences of bankruptcy directly or indirectly due to medical expenses and would not induce more bankruptcies.

[Bankruptcy laws are not germane to this topic.
Regarding your interjecting the ungermane comment, “individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy”:
Bankruptcy does not shield the individual from tax debts (unless their lawyer can negotiate a deal with the government). Bankruptcy cases don’t generally play out as you describe because government is a legally more favored claimant. Lesser favored claimants are repaid only if there’s assets remaining after the favored claimants have collected from whatever assets could be found].

We agree that “containing”, (i.e. reducing) the delivery costs for quality healthcare to USA’s population is of critical concern; I also suppose we agree third party payments for products often induce increased prices of the products; this has been our experiences when government, or non-profit, or commercial enterprises are insuring healthcare expenses.
But if payment methods did not further increase healthcare costs, the remaining costs of medical care would still be problematic. Those remaining medical costs are exclusive of costs due to method for medical payment distributions.

Federal insurance for individual patient’s catastrophic medical costs would not increase the numbers of individuals encountering such costs. When individuals’ reach (what would be a legally determined) catastrophic amount, their catastrophic medical and financial situations are well documented less controversial facts. Federal insurance for individual patient’s catastrophic medical costs would have done and or will do little to induce increased costs or prices for healthcare.

Currently government does effectively, (but not explicitly) directly or indirectly funds catastrophic medical costs for the uninsured and the under insured. (Medicaid provide all medical costs for the extremely impoverished portions of USA’s population. Most poor people are not so extremely impoverished and (excluding cases of employers being legally required to provide insurance,), are not covered by any medical insurance. Wealthier portions of our population (, having greater financial exposure in court,) generally choose to purchase adequate medical insurance. Thus, explicitly entitlement of universal federal catastrophic medical insurance costs would not be of comparatively great additional cost to federal budgets.

As you posted, the underlying concept of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was first established in Massachusetts; Governor Romney signed and his administration enacted Massachusetts Romneycare well prior to the 2008 election of president Obama.

Repectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jul 19 2017, 01:18 PM
Post #8


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 11 2017, 10:32 AM) *
Without oversight and control of costs, this plan moves from ripping off individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy. Very cool for the Martin Shkreli's in our system, not so great otherwise.

As with the healthcare plan known as Obamacare and invented, fundamentally, by Republicans, the lack of cost containment due to the supposed ability of the free market system to control its own costs is the glaring weakness I see in the proposal. The free market system charges whatever the market supports, and since we all need or will need health care, it's very much like dealing drugs -- except the need is inherent and unavoidable. Built-in addiction, no pushing required. Can't just say no without checking out early (dying).

I do see how the healthcare industry loses when patients are pushed into bankruptcy, and it makes perfect sense that the proposal comes from Republicans. This is the party that made bankruptcy harder to do -- even a little income means you will pay something to creditors.
However, this is not the solution. Universal healthcare coverage with cost containment is. This is an established fact in other developed nations, so there's no need to reinvent this wheel. Just emulate and try to improve on a working system, but first get the working system. For all its faults, the ACA does work, but not as well as it could. It'd work a whole lot better by getting rid of our pharma bros....


AuthorMusician, this thread’s topic’s admittingly too wordy title, “Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals” is overly long and thus its presentation is truncated. Regarding your interjecting the subject of bankruptcy within this thread:
The proposed policy’s purpose is reduction of individuals patients and their medical insurers’ vulnerability to catastrophic financial losses due to unusual and extremely expensive medical expenditures.
Bankruptcy is germane to this topic only to the extent, (as we agree), this proposal certainly would reduce incidences of bankruptcy directly or indirectly due to medical expenses and would not induce more bankruptcies.

[Bankruptcy laws are not germane to this topic.
Regarding your interjecting the ungermane comment, “individuals, who can declare bankruptcy, to stealing from the taxpayers who cannot get out of paying their taxes via bankruptcy”:
Bankruptcy does not shield the individual from tax debts (unless their lawyer can negotiate a deal with the government). Bankruptcy cases don’t generally play out as you describe because government is a legally more favored claimant. Lesser favored claimants are repaid only if there’s assets remaining after the favored claimants have collected from whatever assets could be found].

We agree that “containing”, (i.e. reducing) the delivery costs for quality healthcare to USA’s population is of critical concern; I also suppose we agree third party payments for products often induce increased prices of the products; this has been our experiences when government, or non-profit, or commercial enterprises are insuring healthcare expenses.
But if payment methods did not further increase healthcare costs, the remaining costs of medical care would still be problematic. Those remaining medical costs are exclusive of costs due to method for medical payment distributions.

Federal insurance for individual patient’s catastrophic medical costs would not increase the numbers of individuals encountering such costs. When individuals’ reach (what would be a legally determined) catastrophic amount, their catastrophic medical and financial situations are well documented less controversial facts. Federal insurance for individual patient’s catastrophic medical costs would have done and or will do little to induce increased costs or prices for healthcare.

Currently government does effectively, (but not explicitly) directly or indirectly funds catastrophic medical costs for the uninsured and the under insured. (Medicaid provide all medical costs for the extremely impoverished portions of USA’s population. Most poor people are not so extremely impoverished and (excluding cases of employers being legally required to provide insurance,), are not covered by any medical insurance. Wealthier portions of our population (, having greater financial exposure in court,) generally choose to purchase adequate medical insurance. Thus, explicitly entitlement of universal federal catastrophic medical insurance costs would not be of comparatively great additional cost to federal budgets.

As you posted, the underlying concept of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was first established in Massachusetts; Governor Romney signed and his administration enacted Massachusetts Romneycare well prior to the 2008 election of president Obama.

Repectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 25th, 2018 - 09:39 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.