Why scott brown will win

C

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
The consensus in this state is that if this national health care passes we will have to pay for other states health welfare. We as MA citizens under Mitt Romney already passed health-care reform in this state and have the lowest uninsured rate in the nation.

People here are getting ready to file there taxes and yet again be penalized on a Federal tax rate level because our Standard of living index is one of the top in the country. Every year we gets screwed with a higher effective Federal tax rate for the same standard of living as other states. Now the democrats are asking us to pay more then our fair share for a national plan as well.

We are rejecting this notion but would support any federal legislation that evens out the burden. I suggest a plan that requires each state to manage there own health-welfare just like we already do now with both our healthcare and automobile insurance.
 
I'm sure there is another example, but I can't remember a local election that had more significant national consequences.

Losing TK's seat will be a serious, serious wake up call for the DNC. Should be an interesting evening, to say the least.

I still think it will be close, but I'm backing off my previous prediction of a double-digit Coakley win...
 
Chapdogs simplified national healthcare:

Every state must have 95% coverage of health-care by 2015 or will lose federal subsidy END.
 
Chapdog said:
The consensus in this state is that if this national health care passes we will have to pay for other states health welfare. We as MA citizens under Mitt Romney already passed health-care reform in this state and have the lowest uninsured rate in the nation.

People here are getting ready to file there taxes and yet again be penalized on a Federal tax rate level because our Standard of living index is one of the top in the country. Every year we gets screwed with a higher effective Federal tax rate for the same standard of living as other states. Now the democrats are asking us to pay more then our fair share for a national plan as well.

We are rejecting this notion but would support any federal legislation that evens out the burden. I suggest a plan that requires each state to manage there own health-welfare just like we already do now with both our healthcare and automobile insurance.
Click to expand...


Chap - With all due respect, the reason why you are voting for Scott Brown is not reflective of the reasons why others may or may not be voting for Scott Brown or may or may not be voting for Martha Coakley.
 
Chapdog said:
Chapdogs simplified national healthcare:

Every state must have 95% coverage of health-care by 2015 or will lose federal subsidy END.
Click to expand...

that is great... but does nothing to solve to problem of rising costs. Simply saying 'do it or else' is not going to work.

As you know, we will never have a sustainable health care system if we do not address the reasons for the ever rising costs.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Chap - With all due respect, the reason why you are voting for Scott Brown is not reflective of the reasons why others may or may not be voting for Scott Brown or may or may not be voting for Martha Coakley.
Click to expand...

No doubt some may be voting just based on her ignorance of local sports, or her arrogance with the reporter, or her lack of facts on al quida in Afghanistan, or perhaps her robo call harassment, or negative ad blitz.

Smart voters are rejecting healthcare in this state. its bad for us. It will without a doubt cost us more.
 
Superfreak said:
that is great... but does nothing to solve to problem of rising costs. Simply saying 'do it or else' is not going to work.

As you know, we will never have a sustainable health care system if we do not address the reasons for the ever rising costs.
Click to expand...

I always heard that rising cost was because people were going to emergency room for basic things, and that people were not getting preventative care.

I want to amend slightly my plan to add in that people should not be rejected via pre-existing conditions. I suggest states use a similar method we in MA do with our bad drivers within the auto insurance. we SEED the bad drivers and then allocate them to the insurance companies based on there percent of total population insurance. If Commerce insures 60% of MA drivers they get 60% of the seeded drivers.
 
Chapdog said:
I always heard that rising cost was because people were going to emergency room for basic things, and that people were not getting preventative care.

I want to amend slightly my plan to add in that people should not be rejected via pre-existing conditions. I suggest states use a similar method we in MA do with our bad drivers within the auto insurance. we SEED the bad drivers and then allocate them to the insurance companies based on there percent of total population insurance. If Commerce insures 60% of MA drivers they get 60% of the seeded drivers.
Click to expand...


It's funny that you mention the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That's one thing (among a few others) in the national reform bill that we don't have here in MA already.
 
Chapdog said:
I always heard that rising cost was because people were going to emergency room for basic things, and that people were not getting preventative care.

I want to amend slightly my plan to add in that people should not be rejected via pre-existing conditions. I suggest states use a similar method we in MA do with our bad drivers within the auto insurance. we SEED the bad drivers and then allocate them to the insurance companies based on there percent of total population insurance. If Commerce insures 60% of MA drivers they get 60% of the seeded drivers.
Click to expand...

That is certainly one of the problems.

Then you also have litigation, which leads to defensive medicine practices and higher malpractice insurance rates... both of which continue to jack up medical costs.

You also have the fact that this country continues to become more and more obese. The more obese we become, the greater the medical costs.

We also need to have one set of rules that each state abides by. 50 sets of rules just creates a bureaucratic nightmare and leads to the near monopolies (or duopolies) that we see in most states.

We also need to decouple from corporate plans. Most individuals will pay far less with an individual plan that they have to qualify for.

For those that do not qualify on their own, THOSE are the people we can set up a plan for.... with a method like the one you mention.
 
Superfreak said:
That is certainly one of the problems.

Then you also have litigation, which leads to defensive medicine practices and higher malpractice insurance rates... both of which continue to jack up medical costs.

You also have the fact that this country continues to become more and more obese. The more obese we become, the greater the medical costs.

We also need to have one set of rules that each state abides by. 50 sets of rules just creates a bureaucratic nightmare and leads to the near monopolies (or duopolies) that we see in most states.

We also need to decouple from corporate plans. Most individuals will pay far less with an individual plan that they have to qualify for.

For those that do not qualify on their own, THOSE are the people we can set up a plan for.... with a method like the one you mention.
Click to expand...

That makes me nervous the notion of decoupling from corporate plans. I know the republicans have been talking about it but financially I cannot see any way that it wouldn't result in a huge increase in monthly expense to those who have healthcare plans with work.
 
NigelTufnel said:
It's funny that you mention the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That's one thing (among a few others) in the national reform bill that we don't have here in MA already.
Click to expand...

We should fix that. A national mandate for what needs to be included in the state plans would be fine. I don't even mind national healthcare but just don't make our state pay for other states healthcare.
 
Topspin said:
then sit back and watch cost continue to rise, saying doctors cost isn't part of rising hc is assinine.
Click to expand...

It isn't. It is minor in terms of overall costs. Especially when you look at the fact that the majority of increases is due to having to cover ever higher malpractice insurance rates.

When you compare what they make to lawyers, C-level exec's, athletes, entertainers, the top specialists don't make anywhere near what the top paid in the other areas make. Yet their education requirements are far more stringent. They hold people's lives in their hands.

When you look at family practitioners... they make roughly $120-150k on average. MBA's make more, yet require far less stringent an education.
 
Superfreak said:
It isn't. It is minor in terms of overall costs. Especially when you look at the fact that the majority of increases is due to having to cover ever higher malpractice insurance rates.

When you compare what they make to lawyers, C-level exec's, athletes, entertainers, the top specialists don't make anywhere near what the top paid in the other areas make. Yet their education requirements are far more stringent. They hold people's lives in their hands.

When you look at family practitioners... they make roughly $120-150k on average. MBA's make more, yet require far less stringent an education.
Click to expand...

Well grasshopper, I will return after nothing is done and show you a massive increase in cost. AMA=CABAL
 
Chapdog said:
That makes me nervous the notion of decoupling from corporate plans. I know the republicans have been talking about it but financially I cannot see any way that it wouldn't result in a huge increase in monthly expense to those who have healthcare plans with work.
Click to expand...

Again, for those who qualify, it will be far less. The EXACT same plan that I have is also offered through my employer. It costs 2.5 times MORE through my employer. The reason... the automatic qualification through the employer plan.

For those who do not qualify, they can stick with group plans... just don't do it through employers. Employers can still contribute to the costs, but this way they do not control the plan.... which provides portability to the individual.

We also need to go back towards higher deductible plans that provide 100% for catastrophic care. The day to day type doctors visits should be paid out of pocket (counting against the deductible). People tend to go to the doctor more frequently when they do not see the effect on their wallets (ie... they have a small co-pay or no co-pay).

Preventative care should be a pre-requisite for every plan... and that should be provided with no out of pocket expense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top