The coming financial crisis

[Sgt PSN]

Ive been in the medical arena for years

getting monthly shots for fire crotch at the free clinic doesn't count. 

and have spoken to many surgeons who would rather prescribe every precaution necessary to avoid the rigors of a malpractice suit. Not to mention that advancement in medical technology has been used more as an unnecessary crutch than whats actually "supposed" to be prescribed to the patient

On one side I cant say that I blame them, but I agree with the author that too many medical based decisions are levied toward whats goes into their pocket and its crushing

suprisingly, i agree with all of this.  well said.

[rjs246]

A slightly right-leaning, but basically middle of the road, quick-hitter on government expansion.

[rjs246]

Talking about Health Insurance Exchanges.

The super-leftist, sarcastic tone of this article is annoying and condescending and childish, but the actual content is spot on.

[rjs246]

Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman weighs in again.

[rjs246]

Brief analysis of the conflicting Republican arguments against Health Care Reform.

[rjs246]

Health care whistle blower talks about how super duper the insurance companies are

Now a senior fellow on health care for the watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy, Potter writes a blog on health care reform. He is focusing on efforts to defeat legislation supporting a government health care plan -- something he supports.

In early July, Potter testified before the Senate Commerce Committee, telling senators that "I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry."

Potter described how underwriters at his former company would drive small businesses with expensive insurance claims to dump their Cigna policies. Industry executives refer to the practice as "purging," Potter said.

"When that business comes up for renewal, the underwriters jack the rates up so much, the employer has no choice but to drop insurance," Potter had said.

[rjs246]

Recipe for a ten year recovery.

Pretty much everything we know about the recessions that follow financial crises suggests that they last for an exceptionally long time. The reason has to do with a distinctive feature of these recessions: vast oceans of debt. During boom times, as a recent IMF report explains, people save less and borrow more, leading to a surge of consumer spending. But once the crisis hits, overextended households abruptly retrench. Saving shoots up as they pay down their debts; consumption plummets and can languish for years.[/url]

[rjs246]

Are people finally starting to realize that 'rationing' of health care is already happening by insurance companies?

Roberts: Kathleen Sebelius, the current HHS secretary, before she was the governor of Kansas was the state insurance commissioner. Talking about rationing, she says she "...saw [rationing] on a regular basis by private insurers, who often made decisions overruling suggestions that doctors would make for their patients." We talk about rationing potentially in the framework of a public option when it comes to health insurance, but is it not true that rationing is already taking place?

Singer: Oh definitely it is. After I wrote the New York Times article, I had a letter from someone who had multiple sclerosis. And he was both a British citizen, but living in America. And he was saying there were treatments like physical therapy that he was denied by his private insurance company, which were very effective and helpful, that he could get for free on the British National Health Service.

[reese125]

5 more posts you'll cover a full page

[rjs246]

One does what one can.

[rjs246]

OK so after reading all of the articles that I've posted in this thread, here's how I understand the Health Care issue at the moment:

- Economists all agree that the best way to bring costs down on a national scale would be to tax employee provided health insurance. Failing that, a small reduction or reasonable ceiling on benefits would save money. Based on this article either of these options would save trillions. The White House won't consider this because the unions oppose it.

- A public option would provide a lot of leverage in terms of driving costs downs. Insurance companies are huge and negotiating with them from a position of weakness does not inspire confidence that they will be compelled to lower prices. A government run option has the size and strength to compete on a more level playing field. The alternative to a public option, not-for-profit co-operatives have proven to work on a small scale, but are likely to have trouble competing on a national, or even regional, scale. However, they do provide a good model and are probably a good starting point/stepping stone.

There. I'll stop now.

[Diomedes]

I completely support taxation of employer provided heath care, for what it's worth.

[mpmcgraw]

why?

[ice grillin you]

im a union guy but in this case farg the unions....this is to important

[Diomedes]

I don't have much time right now to organize thoughts well, but here goes a quick rant:

Employees receive for free a service which costs money, which has real value.  That value is quite high.  Easily eight grand a year for a single employee, 15 for a spouse, and more for kids, etc.  For the employee, it's a great deal...get thousands of dollars worth of services for free (less your few hundred a year on co-pays, etc.) and pay no taxes on that value.

But at the end of the day, it's income.  Just like having an employer provided limo service is actually income.  Had the employer not provided the health care, they'd have to pay the employee a similar quantity in salarly to keep him.  And that would be taxed as income.  So why isn't it taxed now?

The exemption from taxing health care as in come favors the rich:  The higher the position, the greater the value of the health care plan offered.  Executives get truly awesome, extremely expensive plans.  I've seen this first hand.  Private doctor visits to your office with no time limit, etc. 

The exemption has the affect of shielding (or at best, obscuring) from the employee the actual cost of the health care.  That's bad.  People need to know that MRIs cost thousands each time, just like they know how much it costs to get the brakes fixed on your car.  Without any idea how expensive this shtein is, and with someone else picking up the tab, irresponsible behavior is encouraged.  Overuse of services, etc. 

So what you've got is millions of people getting thousands of dollars each in services they don't have to pay for, or be taxed on.  Great for them, but what about everyone else?  The self employed?  The part time employed?  The unemployed?  There's no money in any budget to offer them a similar sweetheart deal....they're farged.

That needs to end.

I'm sure I'm leaving out some points, but I gotta run.


Mind you, I'm advocating for taxing my own family.  Our health care is provided through my hot nurse wife's job.