The papers are filled with news these days that the various states and local governments are being hit hard with the economy. Tax revenues are down, which should come as no surprise.
The problem is that states are notoriously inefficient and driven by local politics and union allegiance. States have a hard time seeing themselves as employers when it comes to state workers and as a result benefits typically outpace the private sector. In other words state workers pay less and get more than the vast majority of the people in a state who are paying the bill.
State legislatures add mandates to health benefits that add up to 25% to the cost of health insurance, all influenced by special interests often representing a very small portion of the population.
I serve as an unpaid commissioner on a state board and see it all first hand, so while we all seem to focus on the federal government, we should pay more attention to the politics at the state level.
Here is an example. The average pension for a person in government is nearly twice that of the private sector (if you are lucky enough to have a pension). In fact, 49 out of the 50 states still have generous traditional pensions while the taxpayers who pay for all this are lucky to have a 401(k) plan. :-3
Characteristics 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007
Private sector 9,720 9,238 10,087 10,328 11,021 12,063 12,191 12,599
Public sector 19,674 18,570 18,965 18,131 20,418 21,391 23,172 23,721
Source: Employee Benefits Research Institute
The STATE of Things
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
The STATE of Things
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
The STATE of Things
Our Pres. Elect says he wants all Americans to have the same kind of health care that members of Congress have. Maybe he can figure out a economical way to have all Americans have the same generous pension benefits that most states and federal government have for their people.
Requiring Health Insurance Companies to insure those with pre existing illnesses is ridiculous. That's like asking a Life Insurance Co. to pay claims on previously deceased.
Requiring Health Insurance Companies to insure those with pre existing illnesses is ridiculous. That's like asking a Life Insurance Co. to pay claims on previously deceased.
The STATE of Things
Scrat;1090832 wrote: It's pretty simple Lon, a one payer system. A system like Britains would do nicely.
The one thing we need to get control of is just what is an illness and what the system will pay for.
What made it comparatively simple in the UK was that there was overwhelming support for the idea in the UK. There still is along with very real hostility to attempts to bring in changes that hint of privatisation. To make a very sweeping generalisation it seems fundamentally wrong to us that people should not receive medical treatment simply because of they do not have the money to pay, profitability is not something that comes in to it. I've paid in to the NHS all my working life and very seldom used it, so arguably I have been paying for everybody else's treatment including some who have possibly never worked. But if something serious develops-cancer for instance or heart disease I expect the treatment to be freely available regardless of cost. It's a mind set and attitude that I get the impression americans don't share or even understand.
It seems most of the comparisons with other countries are done with the intention of proving they are not as good as the states and more expensive to run with carefully selected statistics aimed at proving the point. In reality we start out with a totally different perspective in the first place in that the assumption is we need to provide universal healthcare. How we do it is the issue not whether we should be doing it in the first place. Seems to me as an outsider you need to decide if you want to do it in the first place an take it from there.
Our pension system is totally F---ked up now and for that Gordon Brown must take a large measure of blame. But I won't bore you with that
The one thing we need to get control of is just what is an illness and what the system will pay for.
What made it comparatively simple in the UK was that there was overwhelming support for the idea in the UK. There still is along with very real hostility to attempts to bring in changes that hint of privatisation. To make a very sweeping generalisation it seems fundamentally wrong to us that people should not receive medical treatment simply because of they do not have the money to pay, profitability is not something that comes in to it. I've paid in to the NHS all my working life and very seldom used it, so arguably I have been paying for everybody else's treatment including some who have possibly never worked. But if something serious develops-cancer for instance or heart disease I expect the treatment to be freely available regardless of cost. It's a mind set and attitude that I get the impression americans don't share or even understand.
It seems most of the comparisons with other countries are done with the intention of proving they are not as good as the states and more expensive to run with carefully selected statistics aimed at proving the point. In reality we start out with a totally different perspective in the first place in that the assumption is we need to provide universal healthcare. How we do it is the issue not whether we should be doing it in the first place. Seems to me as an outsider you need to decide if you want to do it in the first place an take it from there.
Our pension system is totally F---ked up now and for that Gordon Brown must take a large measure of blame. But I won't bore you with that
The STATE of Things
Lon;1089998 wrote:
Requiring Health Insurance Companies to insure those with pre existing illnesses is ridiculous. That's like asking a Life Insurance Co. to pay claims on previously deceased.
As I work in health care, I have such an issue with this one, Lon. I can see how you're trying to tie together the life insurance thing with health insurance, but it is a rather disheartening and unfair correlation.
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
Requiring Health Insurance Companies to insure those with pre existing illnesses is ridiculous. That's like asking a Life Insurance Co. to pay claims on previously deceased.
As I work in health care, I have such an issue with this one, Lon. I can see how you're trying to tie together the life insurance thing with health insurance, but it is a rather disheartening and unfair correlation.
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
The STATE of Things
Scrat;1090832 wrote:
The one thing we need to get control of is just what is an illness and what the system will pay for.
Yes, Scrat, I completely agree. This is a big one.
Personally, (and I know I'm gonna get a lot of crap for saying this,) I believe if someone is a smoker and gets some chronic respiratory/cardiovascular disease, than sorry, too bad. Their expenses should be out of pocket.
Let's face it. Smokers have created an undue burden on the health care system. Smoking is a choice, and therefore, the diseases that are created by it are considered preventable.
Of course, if someone gets lung cancer and is a non-smoker, than I don't think they should pay completely out of pocket. Sometimes you get a disease regardless of how healthy you've lived.
The one thing we need to get control of is just what is an illness and what the system will pay for.
Yes, Scrat, I completely agree. This is a big one.
Personally, (and I know I'm gonna get a lot of crap for saying this,) I believe if someone is a smoker and gets some chronic respiratory/cardiovascular disease, than sorry, too bad. Their expenses should be out of pocket.
Let's face it. Smokers have created an undue burden on the health care system. Smoking is a choice, and therefore, the diseases that are created by it are considered preventable.
Of course, if someone gets lung cancer and is a non-smoker, than I don't think they should pay completely out of pocket. Sometimes you get a disease regardless of how healthy you've lived.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
The STATE of Things
laneybug;1091429 wrote: As I work in health care, I have such an issue with this one, Lon. I can see how you're trying to tie together the life insurance thing with health insurance, but it is a rather disheartening and unfair correlation.
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
That's all fine to say and even logical, but people must understand what it means to their costs. Nobody wants to hear what happens to health costs when you have no standards and everyone is covered for everything. the simple truth is such a strategy regardless of the system is unaffordable which means you employ some form of rationing one one or more of the parties in the system.
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
That's all fine to say and even logical, but people must understand what it means to their costs. Nobody wants to hear what happens to health costs when you have no standards and everyone is covered for everything. the simple truth is such a strategy regardless of the system is unaffordable which means you employ some form of rationing one one or more of the parties in the system.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
The STATE of Things
laneybug;1091429 wrote: As I work in health care, I have such an issue with this one, Lon. I can see how you're trying to tie together the life insurance thing with health insurance, but it is a rather disheartening and unfair correlation.
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
You are missing the point. Requiring any insurance company to assume a KNOWN risk is not insurance it's a guarantee. To have insurance when you need it, you must buy it when you don't, that's insurance.
You would not expect a insurance company to insure your house for fire when the woods around your home are already burning would you?
These people are NOT dead and should not be treated by insurance as such. With the proper medical care, many, many people with pre-existing illnesses can live long and productive lives.
You are missing the point. Requiring any insurance company to assume a KNOWN risk is not insurance it's a guarantee. To have insurance when you need it, you must buy it when you don't, that's insurance.
You would not expect a insurance company to insure your house for fire when the woods around your home are already burning would you?
The STATE of Things
Lon;1091610 wrote: You are missing the point. Requiring any insurance company to assume a KNOWN risk is not insurance it's a guarantee. To have insurance when you need it, you must buy it when you don't, that's insurance.
You would not expect a insurance company to insure your house for fire when the woods around your home are already burning would you?
Lon, I understand what you are saying, but you are still speaking in metaphors!
No, I would not expect a home insurance company to insure a house that is in imminent danger of burning down. That would be absurd.
Paying for health insurance does not prevent illness. Life insurance does not prevent death. Home insurance does not prevent fires. Insurance companies can not live under the guise that this is not so.
Let's talk specifics. If I had Type 1 Diabetes, which is a pre-existing condition, do you honestly believe that insurance shouldn't help cover my health care costs?? Type 1 Diabetes can be expensive, and was of no fault to the afflicted. So should we simply sweep them under the rug as an insurance casualty?
Besides, all one has to do to circumvent that is to have the doctor/provider diagnose you with a similar illness which needs the same treatment and wham. Now you have an illness developed AFTER you gained insurance. Which is done regularly and is ridiculous. Insurance companies should simply accept that most people have a pre-existing condition, especially if they've switched insurances recently.
Why the hell are you paying the premiums if there is no coverage?
You would not expect a insurance company to insure your house for fire when the woods around your home are already burning would you?
Lon, I understand what you are saying, but you are still speaking in metaphors!
No, I would not expect a home insurance company to insure a house that is in imminent danger of burning down. That would be absurd.
Paying for health insurance does not prevent illness. Life insurance does not prevent death. Home insurance does not prevent fires. Insurance companies can not live under the guise that this is not so.
Let's talk specifics. If I had Type 1 Diabetes, which is a pre-existing condition, do you honestly believe that insurance shouldn't help cover my health care costs?? Type 1 Diabetes can be expensive, and was of no fault to the afflicted. So should we simply sweep them under the rug as an insurance casualty?
Besides, all one has to do to circumvent that is to have the doctor/provider diagnose you with a similar illness which needs the same treatment and wham. Now you have an illness developed AFTER you gained insurance. Which is done regularly and is ridiculous. Insurance companies should simply accept that most people have a pre-existing condition, especially if they've switched insurances recently.
Why the hell are you paying the premiums if there is no coverage?
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
The STATE of Things
Scrat;1091654 wrote: Smoking is one thing, excessive drinking is another, drug use yet another. Running across a major highway in heavy traffic or climbing a cliff or a mountain are all things that need to be adressed. I do agree that random acts of stupidity should not go onto the tab.
The list is long but there are ways around certain things. Heroin addicts? Simply lock them up in a padded cell, none of these treatment scams like methodone clinics. We have to get tough on addiction, not inhumane but in an effective way and thorough. We also have to have the balls to say to them that they are on their own, live or die once given a chance. I'm all for legalizing drugs and taxing them.
Got cirrosis of the liver from drinking your whole life? That's a no brainer.
I totally agree. Hell, if someone drives around without their seat belt, insurance cost should go up for them.
As for the people you're talking about.... if they can find the money to buy illegal drugs even if they're homeless, then they can find the money to put themselves through rehab without the help of government funding. I'm harsh about that, yes.
The list is long but there are ways around certain things. Heroin addicts? Simply lock them up in a padded cell, none of these treatment scams like methodone clinics. We have to get tough on addiction, not inhumane but in an effective way and thorough. We also have to have the balls to say to them that they are on their own, live or die once given a chance. I'm all for legalizing drugs and taxing them.
Got cirrosis of the liver from drinking your whole life? That's a no brainer.
I totally agree. Hell, if someone drives around without their seat belt, insurance cost should go up for them.
As for the people you're talking about.... if they can find the money to buy illegal drugs even if they're homeless, then they can find the money to put themselves through rehab without the help of government funding. I'm harsh about that, yes.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
The STATE of Things
laneybug;1091850 wrote: I totally agree. Hell, if someone drives around without their seat belt, insurance cost should go up for them.
and even though my rating is a 10 for our car insurance, no tickets, no charges, no accidents.....ever!
-my rates are still high because I get to pay for everyone else's damn mistakes!:-5:-5
yeah, that's fair!
:sneaky::sneaky::mad::mad:
and even though my rating is a 10 for our car insurance, no tickets, no charges, no accidents.....ever!
-my rates are still high because I get to pay for everyone else's damn mistakes!:-5:-5
yeah, that's fair!
:sneaky::sneaky::mad::mad:Life is just to short for drama.
The STATE of Things
laneybug;1091849 wrote: Lon, I understand what you are saying, but you are still speaking in metaphors!
No, I would not expect a home insurance company to insure a house that is in imminent danger of burning down. That would be absurd.
Paying for health insurance does not prevent illness. Life insurance does not prevent death. Home insurance does not prevent fires. Insurance companies can not live under the guise that this is not so.
Let's talk specifics. If I had Type 1 Diabetes, which is a pre-existing condition, do you honestly believe that insurance shouldn't help cover my health care costs?? Type 1 Diabetes can be expensive, and was of no fault to the afflicted. So should we simply sweep them under the rug as an insurance casualty?
Besides, all one has to do to circumvent that is to have the doctor/provider diagnose you with a similar illness which needs the same treatment and wham. Now you have an illness developed AFTER you gained insurance. Which is done regularly and is ridiculous. Insurance companies should simply accept that most people have a pre-existing condition, especially if they've switched insurances recently.
Why the hell are you paying the premiums if there is no coverage?
It's simple, health provision starts at birth therefore there are no pre-existing conditions to take account of
No, I would not expect a home insurance company to insure a house that is in imminent danger of burning down. That would be absurd.
Paying for health insurance does not prevent illness. Life insurance does not prevent death. Home insurance does not prevent fires. Insurance companies can not live under the guise that this is not so.
Let's talk specifics. If I had Type 1 Diabetes, which is a pre-existing condition, do you honestly believe that insurance shouldn't help cover my health care costs?? Type 1 Diabetes can be expensive, and was of no fault to the afflicted. So should we simply sweep them under the rug as an insurance casualty?
Besides, all one has to do to circumvent that is to have the doctor/provider diagnose you with a similar illness which needs the same treatment and wham. Now you have an illness developed AFTER you gained insurance. Which is done regularly and is ridiculous. Insurance companies should simply accept that most people have a pre-existing condition, especially if they've switched insurances recently.
Why the hell are you paying the premiums if there is no coverage?
It's simple, health provision starts at birth therefore there are no pre-existing conditions to take account of
The STATE of Things
Scrat -- Goodness, not only does the insurance try their utmost NOT to pay for insurance, some doctors do their utmost TO GET YOU to take a prescription drug because they get incentives!
It's a screwed up system, for sure.
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
Bryn Mawr -- I wish!! Not here in the States, anyway. :-5
It's a screwed up system, for sure.
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
Bryn Mawr -- I wish!! Not here in the States, anyway. :-5
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
The STATE of Things
[QUOTE=laneybug;1092410]
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It infuriates me that I have to pay for others accidents, I have taken alot of pride in reaching top goal on car insurance all these years, but still paying for others mistakes..........
...that is not right, people who have had no accidents, tickets, etc....should be paying lesser amounts for being good drivers!:-5:-5:mad::mad:
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It infuriates me that I have to pay for others accidents, I have taken alot of pride in reaching top goal on car insurance all these years, but still paying for others mistakes..........
...that is not right, people who have had no accidents, tickets, etc....should be paying lesser amounts for being good drivers!:-5:-5
:mad::mad:Life is just to short for drama.
The STATE of Things
Odie;1092446 wrote:
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It infuriates me that I have to pay for others accidents, I have taken alot of pride in reaching top goal on car insurance all these years, but still paying for others mistakes..........
...that is not right, people who have had no accidents, tickets, etc....should be paying lesser amounts for being good drivers!:-5:-5:mad::mad:
Over here your insurance premiums decease if you can show that you've passed the Institute of Advanced Motoring examinations and are therefore less likely to have an accident.
Odie -- No kidding. Not only does this happen with car insurance, but at least in America, those who PAY for health insurance must pay higher premiums to support those on state-funded insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It infuriates me that I have to pay for others accidents, I have taken alot of pride in reaching top goal on car insurance all these years, but still paying for others mistakes..........
...that is not right, people who have had no accidents, tickets, etc....should be paying lesser amounts for being good drivers!:-5:-5
:mad::mad:Over here your insurance premiums decease if you can show that you've passed the Institute of Advanced Motoring examinations and are therefore less likely to have an accident.
The STATE of Things
Bryn Mawr;1092477 wrote: Over here your insurance premiums decease if you can show that you've passed the Institute of Advanced Motoring examinations and are therefore less likely to have an accident.
I think that premiums do go down here as well, but not in relation to the driver's good driving. I mean, the cost of everything is just so high, no matter how responsible one is. And, I believe it's because the U.S. is very concerned with how we're going to support those who are living off the system instead of trying to rehabilitate them into the workforce again. (I'm not talking about the retired or seriously disabled.)
It's a very sad state of affairs. Those who are working full time jobs for crap wages have a harder time getting any kind of assistance than those who don't work at all! I'd think that the government would WANT people to work, but I've heard so many cases where people have quit their jobs or worked part time so they could get into state funded assistance programs because their 2 or even 3 full time jobs just didn't cut it.
How ridiculous is that? I'm not sure how it all works in other countries, so maybe this is appalling to me because I have nothing else to compare it to.
Well, that's my rant for now. :sneaky:
Merry Christmas all!! I hope we can all put away the concerns of these crazy times and have a beautiful day! :-6
I think that premiums do go down here as well, but not in relation to the driver's good driving. I mean, the cost of everything is just so high, no matter how responsible one is. And, I believe it's because the U.S. is very concerned with how we're going to support those who are living off the system instead of trying to rehabilitate them into the workforce again. (I'm not talking about the retired or seriously disabled.)
It's a very sad state of affairs. Those who are working full time jobs for crap wages have a harder time getting any kind of assistance than those who don't work at all! I'd think that the government would WANT people to work, but I've heard so many cases where people have quit their jobs or worked part time so they could get into state funded assistance programs because their 2 or even 3 full time jobs just didn't cut it.
How ridiculous is that? I'm not sure how it all works in other countries, so maybe this is appalling to me because I have nothing else to compare it to.
Well, that's my rant for now. :sneaky:
Merry Christmas all!! I hope we can all put away the concerns of these crazy times and have a beautiful day! :-6
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.