quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Car insurance is like that now in many states. Including mine.
A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. You aren't forced to own a car. Many people, especially in cities, choose not to own a car. Medical insurance is different. You can't choose to be born. The law dictates you purchase this private product...because you are alive.
Now we're going to see the full force of the government dictating your life. We're not talking speed limits here,....we're talking cholesterol levels. The cigarette tax is one thing, the red meat tax is coming. After all, the feds are paying for your excess consumption. The auto industry regulations are now your body. The salt avoiding, vegitarian, non-soda drinking good citizen shouldn't have to support the medical bills of the steak, pepsi and salty french fry eating irresponsible citizen. It's coming.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and in all the similar countries where universal health care has been the law of the land for decades, we've seen this show up exactly never.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:they can't legislate the laws of physics. The pills cost more than medicaid reimbursment levels
The cost of pills is only loosely tied to any laws of physics.
quote:The Walgreen's cashier is paid $8 an hour
I'm pretty sure their pharmacists are paid more than that.
I'm sorry my metaphor was beyond you. The laws of physics = the price of goods. The government can say that Medicaid will only pay X dollars for Y product but if X < Y, they choose not to sell. The law doesn't change the "laws of economics". Of course, laws can bankrupt private industry and then the government will take them over. Unfortunately, government is less efficient, thus more expensive than the evil greedy company they drove out of business.
IE,..the water bill discussion we had earlier and the Social Security pyramid scheme.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, and in all the similar countries where universal health care has been the law of the land for decades, we've seen this show up exactly never.
You're right. They only tax the crap out of you. Some actually have lotteries to see a medical specialist while the leaders of those nations are rushed to America for heart surgery.
The wealthy covered under "universal care" fly to America for care. Equality is not universal. I prefer the best over equally horrible...unless you are a wealthy European/Canadian politician.
The best and brightest Americans go to medical school for the money. Those greedy bastards are good, that's why the rich and politically connected from universal care countries come here.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The fine's you'll have to pay for not purchasing federally approved healthcare...once Obama signs the bill tomorrow.
Once he signs that bill, it will be illegal not to purchase healthcare. For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Special interests anyone? I wish the government required you to buy my product. As a consolation for forcing a 22 year old to buy healthcare, the insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions. All part of the back room deals. Preexisting conditions are covered but the 19 year old will be fined and is in violation of federal law for choosing not to purchase insurance.
It is extremely financially reckless for anyone to choose not to have insurance, even before this bill. If you have no insurance, and have to go to the hospital in an ambulance it costs well over $10,000 without insurance. Since most people can't afford to pay thousands of dollars in healthcare bills, that cost is then foisted off on those who have insurance, in the form of higher premiums. People without health insurance are also one of the reasons that waits at emergency rooms are so long. I had a friend with no insurance. She couldn't afford to pay for a doctor out of pocket, and the father of her child, who was mandated by the courts to put the child on his insurance refused to do so. Every time her daughter got sick, they had to go to the emergency room. It was a waste of time and money, because she didn't ever pay a dime for the medical treatment at the emergency room and they were required to treat her whenever she showed up.
I'm not saying this is the world's greatest bill, or that changes might not need to be made. (The Senate is still entitled to add unlimited amendments to it.) But I shouldn't be made to pay higher premiums because you choose not to have insurance. It's unfair to me, someone who, because I have preexisting conditions, has been careful to have health insurance every day of my life so that those conditions would continue to be covered. To the point where I paid so much out of my own pocket for BlueCross BlueShield when I was waiting tables that I couldn't actually afford the co-pay to go see the doctor. (I got pneumonia because I couldn't afford the co-pay for the doctor's appointment or the Prevacid, which at the time was prescription only.) I sucked it up and paid, because it was the responsible thing to do, and because I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Why should I have to carry another person who doesn't want to take that responsibility?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people "choose" not to have insurance because rent is more important. You are right. It is irresponsible for the young person not to have insurance. Young people know what the insurance companies know....it is extremely unlikely that they need it. Of course, you can find the fraction that require it for odd circumstances. Why do you think the insurance companies charge $50 for a 20 year old and $500 for a 50 year old? The young person made the same calculation as the insurance company. Of course the insurance companies would love nothing more than to have more 20 year old customers. Now that it's law, they can charge more than $50. The 20 year old no longer has a choice and the insurance company can't exclude the 50 year old.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're right. They only tax the crap out of you.
Yeah, and they end up saving more money overall on health care. If we had their systems, we'd have the 'crap taxed out of us' to a tune of about half of what we pay on average for health coverage premiums anyway.
Oh, and we also wouldn't be screwed if there was a gap in our coverage for any reason.
Good game. Play again?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're right. They only tax the crap out of you.
Yeah, and they end up saving more money overall on health care. If we had their systems, we'd have the 'crap taxed out of us' to a tune of about half of what we pay on average for health coverage premiums anyway.
Oh, and we also wouldn't be screwed if there was a gap in our coverage for any reason.
Good game. Play again?
American's "pay twice as much" for a lot of things. Things like entertainment and transportation. I like having two cars (actually I have four). I know it costs "twice as much" but it is nice that my wife and I have our own vehicles. I spend "twice as much" for electricity...I like my large two bath house. It's so much better than the small European apartment where only the extremely wealthy can afford a house like mine.
Adding up the money spent by Americans on a product means nothing. I'm sure we spend "twice as much" on pet products as well. We sure love our dogs and kitties in this country.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like having two cars (actually I have four). I know it costs "twice as much" but it is nice that my wife and I have our own vehicles. I spend "twice as much" for electricity...I like my large two bath house.
Wait, are you suggesting that American health care is so much more expensive because we get two or three of the same procedure at a time? That's the only way your analogy makes sense.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: If you have no insurance, and have to go to the hospital in an ambulance it costs well over $10,000 without insurance.
posted
You could tally up all the individual costs, but yeah. I have had at least two Convenient Anecdotal Friends who got whacked with $10,000 trips to the ER via ambulance.
That said, I don't think the 10k is the standard, uh, finders fee for picking up an uninsured person.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, certainly. I'm not doubting that it costs that much. I used to run a couple of (very) small restaurants, and we once had an on-the-job injury that was bad enough to warrant an ambulance ride. The price tag was... steep.
I'm just curious why an ambulance ride costs so much. Costs aren't generally arbitrary. So... why so expensive?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An ambulance is a very expensive piece of kit filled with even more expensive equipment, and it has to be staffed constantly with multiple professinals who have to go through a lot of school to get where they were, and they're on call even when not being called upon. So, you're starting by getting hit hard by overhead.
That's still surprisingly tolerable until you get to the point where ambulance services have to write off a profound amount of their operations. Anytime anyone gets a ride to the hospital and are in no position to pay (and this happens all the time, especially in urban areas where indigents cluster) you are footing your share of the bill for them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine a massive amount of the cost must be the latter, mustn't it? You have any numbers on that? I suppose I could google it myself.
I mean, certainly the overhead is substantial, but I don't see it being 5 or 10 thousand a pop substantial. I mean, the ambulance ride I mentioned previously was literally a three minute drive. EMTs aren't that well paid.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be cynical a moment, I assume the difference is so they get a bigger tax write off on what didn't get paid. There's not a lot of other reason to charge the company that can afford the bill less than the individual who couldn't afford what the insurance company paid.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Googling suggests that the actual ambulance ride is typically $1000 or less. The rest of that $10000 must be ER expenses.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think it's entertaining and sad when a well-off individual complains that the poor college student won't be able to pay the mandatory health insurance fee when there are provisions that substantially limit the insurance cost for that college student as well as the "fee" for not having health insurance if they choose not to.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: To be cynical a moment, I assume the difference is so they get a bigger tax write off on what didn't get paid.
Even better: i checked up with an EMT (thank you, wonders of internet) and they went through a line-item treatment of recuperative intent. They put the standard fee high, cut it in half, generally, for uninsured peeps, and try to recoup whatever costs, for both the ambulance service and the hospital network in general, are often eaten by the uninsured, insolvent, indigent, etc.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were the somewhat-unwilling subjects of both the regular census and also the ACS long form this year. Seems like we shouldn't have to do both the same year, as the questions definitely overlap. The ACS survey is much more intrusive with its questions, and some of them I felt very uncomfortable answering (not knowing for sure how safe this information really is or how they government will choose to use it). But it was either that, or they would send actual census people out, which is more distasteful to me. So we answered it.
On the regular census, the only thing that bothered me was that they did say they wanted a count "as of April 1" but they also want you to return it before April 1. So like - I'm not a prophet. People die every day - could be me. Maybe I won't be here on April 1 - but here I've already gone and said (I mailed mine in) that this is the count as of April 1, and April isn't here. Makes me feel like I'm lying.
We filled out the ACS completed accurately, yet they stilled called us to "verify" answers, and the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census) and kept questioning some things that came across like she didn't believe the answers. Very very uncomfortable.
But I complied. Wish I had more backbone.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ACS survey is much more intrusive with its questions, and some of them I felt very uncomfortable answering (not knowing for sure how safe this information really is or how they government will choose to use it).
As with the short form Census, the data is insulated even from other government agencies and is only made available in aggregate form for any number of purposes from government planning to sociological and economic research.
quote:Makes me feel like I'm lying.
Obviously they just want your best assessment. Most of us have a reasonable idea about how many people will be living in our home a few weeks out and the occasional mis-estimation isn't going to throw things off much.
quote: the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census)
Did it bother you because you couldn't understand them, or was it just the fact that they spoke with an accent?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE] Did it bother you because you couldn't understand them, or was it just the fact that they spoke with an accent?
Yes.
Which brings me to my other thought/question. They say the Census is supposed to count "American citizens" (or that was how it was originally designed). Yet, local news reports talk about how important it is that census workers go around and count EVERYONE (illegals included) to get an "accurate count" of how many live here. So which is it really, legally, supposed to be? An accurate count of legal American citizens? Or an accurate count of everyone here, whether they are legal or not?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The constitution mandates all "free persons" be counted. It says nothing about citizens. It is constitutionally required that illegal immigrants be counted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about the American census off-hand, but the Canadian one counts non-citizens as well.
quote: Remarks: The landed immigrant status question, along with the citizenship question, is used to identify the non-immigrant population (Canadian citizens by birth), the immigrant population (landed immigrants) and the non-permanent resident population (people from another country who have an employment authorization, a student authorization, or a Minister's permit, or who were refugee claimants at the time of the census, and family members living here with them).
So both? I ask because I have a terrible time understanding people that don't have nearly perfect diction but I also recognize that this is a particular handicap of mine compared to other people that I work with. But I have trouble sympathizing with the idea that the mere existence of any accent should somehow be off-putting.
quote:They say the Census is supposed to count "American citizens" (or that was how it was originally designed).
The Constitution is probably a good place to start:
quote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Nothing there about citizenship. Just "free Persons". Though if the original intent is your concern, then that was to only count white people and 3/5 of each black person.
posted
Yeah this is a pretty straightforward deal. It's supposed to count all people living here, and it's also more factually useful to count the actual number of persons, with or without citizenship.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The constitution mandates all "free persons" be counted. It says nothing about citizens. It is constitutionally required that illegal immigrants be counted.
Thank you for clarifying that for me. I really do appreciate the information.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Sorry about that. I was just pointing out that many poor college students who were too old on Saturday are not too old now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: We filled out the ACS completed accurately, yet they stilled called us to "verify" answers, and the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census) and kept questioning some things that came across like she didn't believe the answers. Very very uncomfortable.
Hey Farmgirl; this is Noemon.
I feel a bit dismayed that you were bothered that the caller had an accent. I had a response written, but I realized that it was responding to assumptions about what you likely meant, so I deleted it. Could you expand on your post a bit? What was it that bothered you about the person not having English as their first language?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Sorry about that. I was just pointing out that many poor college students who were too old on Saturday are not too old now.
Correction: will not be too old in 6 months.
Also, the penalties for not having insurance don't kick in quite yet. I forget if that's one of the provisions that kicks in staring 2011 or 2014.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. That makes sense; as someone pointed out elsewhere, it goes hand-in-hand with the insurance companies not being allowed to decline someone based on pre-existing conditions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem. I have a list of major provisions in the bill organized by the year they go into effect. I've been meaning to throw it up in the healthcare thread, but I wanted to check its accuracy first. Hopefully, there will be time the afternoon.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It came from this article, which has another helpful PDF (changes in the first year) and a cool graph.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
It's possible Farmgirl meant the accent led her to believe the call-back was coming from an non-American company (e.g. Indian accent would make that likely) and she didn't like that the goverment was sending its work overseas.
posted
It makes sense that if you're nervous about sharing data with the government, routing it through a foreign country is not going to make you feel better about it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
It's possible Farmgirl meant the accent led her to believe the call-back was coming from an non-American company (e.g. Indian accent would make that likely) and she didn't like that the goverment was sending its work overseas.
How's that?
Hobbes
That's a possible explanation, and I'd like that to be what she meant. If she replies (and she mostly doesn't hang out here anymore, so it's entirely possible that she hasn't been back since her last post in this thread), we'll find out.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
Y'know, I wouldn't be a fan if her meaning had been simply that she didn't like the caller having an accent either. But frankly the way you phrased your question, Juxtapose, rubbed me the wrong way too. Whereas Jake's post, asking precisely the same question, really, didn't offend at all.
Perhaps the more effective way to get an explanation isn't to sound like an irritated supervisor dealing with a subordinate who's just screwed up?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is possible to note that given the low salary of these call-center positions (about $14 an hour) and that they do seem to favour applications with multiple language experience, you should find immigrants with English as a second language over-represented as compared to native-born English speakers who happen to have learned a second-language.
quote:The temporary call center agent positions available for the 2010 Census will be based in the Kennesaw location. All applicants must pass a security check that includes fingerprinting, be at least 18 years old, have at least a high school diploma, sign a sworn statement to protect Census data and be legally able to work in the United States. Applicants also must be fluent in English. Fluency in other languages, including Vietnamese, Spanish, Korean, Russian and Mandarin Chinese are also needed.
posted
It makes sense that they would favour applicants with multiple languages for the census callers as they probably end up speaking to folks with a lot of different languages.
And we do tend to suck at learning other languages compared to other people learning English.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
