Timeline of Major Provisions in Health Care Plan

[PLAYER57832]

Getting a DUI doesn't mean you're an alcoholic.

No, but repeated DUIs does say something is wrong.

But still, what is someone supposed to do when he can't get insurance?

Do not drive. Driving is a priviliage, not a right.

Hell, I don't know how it is over there but here the insurancecompany simply doesn't pay out when you cause damage while driving drunk.

Here, that is not the case. For one thing, the worst damage is often to the other vehicle.

Sorry, that was an oversimplification. The insurer pays all the damages to the other party but the drunk driver is not covered then himself.

The companies can also increase the premiums based on how many accidents you get, how old you are, how much you drive and all that. So someone who drives drunk too much is probably gonna end up paying most of the costs himself anyway.

Still not really true here, though its a nice idea.

Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

Well, here again, you are just plain wrong. Drunk driving kills more people in a year here, on average, than all 3 world wars combined did. That's not even counting the injuries.

Like I said, your view is quite different from the US reality.

And not drunk driving kills even more people. Unless the US is truly completely fucked backwards the amount of small damage and accidents is more than the amount of drunk driving accidents.

True, but you said paying for damage was not much of an issue because most accidents were small. This is plain and simply not true. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people and maim/injure many.

Also, your statistic is bullshit because the 3(?) world wars, especially the first, had more people die on some days than in any given year in the US.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

More people, not more Americans.

At any rate, my point was they are hardly mostly minor injuries to just the driver, as you asserted.

I mean, okay that's a lot. Yes. Especially compared to over here. But those who can't get insurance aren't going to f*ck all the problems up.

IN fact, they are a huge reason why folks are required to buy insurance, because so many people who cause accidents just skipped the insurance and left he rest of us to pay the bill. Its also why we have "uninsured motorist" and "underinsured motorist" coverage. They cover OUR injuries and damage when someone without insurance hits us. Oh, and its not technically a requirement to buy insurance. Its a requirement to be fiscally responsible. If you have enough money to pay for accidents in cash, you don't have to buy insurance.

[jbrettlip]

You both are arguing a point but NOT making the connection of how insurance markets work. The new healthcare bill puts provisions on the health insurance company that car insurance (along with all other types) don't have. So arguing about whether someone kills someone drinking and driving is not the point. It is that individuals have different risk levels, different prices should be charged, and not subsidized. I can't go to a casino with loaded dice and expect to use them to play craps. I also can't get cancer, adn then buy insurance to get covered. Nor can I get life insurance and off my self the next day and expect it to pay out. Insurance companies are for profit companies. Right or wrong, that is how they exist.

[Snorri1234]

No, but repeated DUIs does say something is wrong.

Yes they say you're dumb. I'd say that DUIs and alcoholism are probably only marginally related.

Not drive. Driving is a priviliage, not a right.

Yup, but sometimes not having a car is not an option. I'm not talking about motherfuckers who keep driving drunk all the time. I'm takling about people who made a few mistakes and then are screwed over.

Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

Well, here again, you are just plain wrong. Drunk driving kills more people in a year here, on average, than all 3 world wars combined did. That's not even counting the injuries.

Like I said, your view is quite different from the US reality.

And not drunk driving kills even more people. Unless the US is truly completely fucked backwards the amount of small damage and accidents is more than the amount of drunk driving accidents.

True, but you said paying for damage was not much of an issue because most accidents were small. This is plain and simply not true. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people and maim/injure many.[/quote]
Yes and there are far more drunk drivers who don't cause accidents then there are who do. My point is that a few people not having insurance isn't going to matter because most of the time they only cost themselves money and not anybody else.

Also, your statistic is bullshit because the 3(?) world wars, especially the first, had more people die on some days than in any given year in the US.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

More people, not more Americans.

At any rate, my point was they are hardly mostly minor injuries to just the driver, as you asserted.

No also more Americans. WWII already had 10 times as many dead americans.

But yes, most of the time it's minor injuries and most of the time it involves only the driver and or passengers. That's not a controversial or strange statement. For every major crash on the highway there are dozens if not hundreds of minor accidents where people hit a pole or run over a dog or any other small thing.

I mean, okay that's a lot. Yes. Especially compared to over here. But those who can't get insurance aren't going to f*ck all the problems up.

IN fact, they are a huge reason why folks are required to buy insurance, because so many people who cause accidents just skipped the insurance and left he rest of us to pay the bill. Its also why we have "uninsured motorist" and "underinsured motorist" coverage. They cover OUR injuries and damage when someone without insurance hits us. Oh, and its not technically a requirement to buy insurance. Its a requirement to be fiscally responsible. If you have enough money to pay for accidents in cash, you don't have to buy insurance.

Seriously? Man over here it's the law for everyone and you get a pretty big fine if you don't have coverage.

[PLAYER57832]

You both are arguing a point but NOT making the connection of how insurance markets work. The new healthcare bill puts provisions on the health insurance company that car insurance (along with all other types) don't have. So arguing about whether someone kills someone drinking and driving is not the point. It is that individuals have different risk levels, different prices should be charged, and not subsidized. I can't go to a casino with loaded dice and expect to use them to play craps. I also can't get cancer, adn then buy insurance to get covered. Nor can I get life insurance and off my self the next day and expect it to pay out. Insurance companies are for profit companies. Right or wrong, that is how they exist.

I agree that they are different, but the REASON they are different is primarily that people have control vover how much they drink. Too many things about health are beyond our control.

There is nothing wrong with a company charging a drunk more for insurance. There IS something wrong with saying "sorry, we are not going to cover your cancer treatments because I have to take my vacation to Paris". There just is.

[Snorri1234]

You both are arguing a point but NOT making the connection of how insurance markets work. The new healthcare bill puts provisions on the health insurance company that car insurance (along with all other types) don't have. So arguing about whether someone kills someone drinking and driving is not the point. It is that individuals have different risk levels, different prices should be charged, and not subsidized. I can't go to a casino with loaded dice and expect to use them to play craps. I also can't get cancer, adn then buy insurance to get covered. Nor can I get life insurance and off my self the next day and expect it to pay out. Insurance companies are for profit companies. Right or wrong, that is how they exist.

Duh, that's why there needs to be a mandate.


Your objection is understandable but the thing is that it's short-term. Yes, some people now will get coverage even though they're a loss for the company, but after enough time everyone has coverage from birth.

[PLAYER57832]

No, but repeated DUIs does say something is wrong.

Yes they say you're dumb. I'd say that DUIs and alcoholism are probably only marginally related.

this discussion needs to go to another thread... and we have had it before.

but, per definition, if your drinking is causing problems, then you have an issue with alchohol. Getting a DUI means you have decided to put everybody else in danger just so you don't have to take a cab or walk home from a night out. It IS a problem. And yes, in this country it is definitely considered a good indicator that someone is either already alchoholic or headed in that directly quickly. I understand that you walk or bike when you drink, don't usually drive and therefore tend to see things differently. But, like I said, we have had this conversation before. I and many others of all stripes pretty well explained why drinking and driving is not just a petty matter here in the US.

And if you wish to get into this more, maybe we should honor the request and go to another thread?

Do not drive. Driving is a priviliage, not a right.

Yup, but sometimes not having a car is not an option. I'm not talking about motherfuckers who keep driving drunk all the time. I'm takling about people who made a few mistakes and then are screwed over.

No dice. Drinking is a choice. If you depend that much upon driving, then just don't drink. Driving might, in some cases, be pretty close to a necessity, much more here in the US than in the Netherlands. However, drinking is absolutely and entirely optional.

It used to be sort of a "right" here in the US, too. But too many people got tired of scraping their kids off the sidewalks. And yes, it usually is/was the kids and not the drunk who got hurt or killed. The survival rates have increased with better seatbelts, but drunk driving is still a HUGE killer.. and is just not excusable, sorry.

Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

Well, here again, you are just plain wrong. Drunk driving kills more people in a year here, on average, than all 3 world wars combined did. That's not even counting the injuries.

Like I said, your view is quite different from the US reality.

And not drunk driving kills even more people. Unless the US is truly completely fucked backwards the amount of small damage and accidents is more than the amount of drunk driving accidents.

True, but you said paying for damage was not much of an issue because most accidents were small. This is plain and simply not true. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people and maim/injure many.

Yes and there are far more drunk drivers who don't cause accidents then there are who do.

Debateable, but besides the point. Many people drive and don't get into accidents, but most will get into an accident if they keep driving drunk.

My point is that a few people not having insurance isn't going to matter because most of the time they only cost themselves money and not anybody else.

This is absolutely baloney.

[
Also, your statistic is bullshit because the 3(?) world wars, especially the first, had more people die on some days than in any given year in the US.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

More people, not more Americans.

At any rate, my point was they are hardly mostly minor injuries to just the driver, as you asserted.

No also more Americans. WWII already had 10 times as many dead americans.

The rate of drunk driving deaths has decreased a lot since the US started its active anti-drunk driving campaigns. However, when I was younger those were figures commonly tossed out.

At any rate, the point is that the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers is not small and hardly confined to "just the drunks".

But yes, most of the time it's minor injuries and most of the time it involves only the driver and or passengers. That's not a controversial or strange statement. For every major crash on the highway there are dozens if not hundreds of minor accidents where people hit a pole or run over a dog or any other small thing.

Snorri, speaking as a former EMT, being the wife of a current first responder (firefighters have to respond to any and all wrecks here) you are just plain wrong.

And yes, there are more minor accidents than major ones, but your point is still wrong, even as you changed it from "just the drunk" to "just the drunk and passengers".

I mean, okay that's a lot. Yes. Especially compared to over here. But those who can't get insurance aren't going to f*ck all the problems up.

IN fact, they are a huge reason why folks are required to buy insurance, because so many people who cause accidents just skipped the insurance and left he rest of us to pay the bill. Its also why we have "uninsured motorist" and "underinsured motorist" coverage. They cover OUR injuries and damage when someone without insurance hits us. Oh, and its not technically a requirement to buy insurance. Its a requirement to be fiscally responsible. If you have enough money to pay for accidents in cash, you don't have to buy insurance.

Seriously? Man over here it's the law for everyone and you get a pretty big fine if you don't have coverage.

Everybody IS required to show proof of ability to pay. The easiest way to do that is to show insurance. But, yeah, if you happen to have around $250,000 (that was what was required when the law passed in CA) that you don't mind being tied up indefinitely... that is an option. In reality, that option is mostly used by governmental agencies.

And, in some states I think individuals might actually have to buy insurance, not just show the money.

[Nobunaga]

... The comparison to car insurance is flawed (I've noted before). But if one were to insist, the comparison would perhaps most accurately look something like this:

... Joe Smith has been in several accidents, found to be at fault in all of them. He averages $300,000 of damage to vehicles and property per year. Joe is shopping for some insurance.

... Joe goes to Acme Auto Insurance to get coverage. They don't even want to talk to this guy, they ask him to leave.

... In walks the Feds, who inform Acme that they are not only legally bound to cover Joe Smith, but also that they must do so at federally approved affordable rates.

... Joe walks away with a policy for $650 every six months.

... After a few similar cases, Acme goes tits-up.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... The comparison to car insurance is flawed (I've noted before). But if one were to insist, the comparison would perhaps most accurately look something like this:

... Joe Smith has been in several accidents, found to be at fault in all of them. He averages $300,000 of damage to vehicles and property per year. Joe is shopping for some insurance.

... Joe goes to Acme Auto Insurance to get coverage. They don't even want to talk to this guy, they ask him to leave.

... In walks the Feds, who inform Acme that they are not only legally bound to cover Joe Smith, but also that they must do so at federally approved affordable rates.

... Joe walks away with a policy for $650 every six months.

... After a few similar cases, Acme goes tits-up.

...

Your first statement was correct. The next 4 just don't really apply.

[Snorri1234]

this discussion needs to go to another thread... and we have had it before.

but, per definition, if your drinking is causing problems, then you have an issue with alchohol. Getting a DUI means you have decided to put everybody else in danger just so you don't have to take a cab or walk home from a night out. It IS a problem. And yes, in this country it is definitely considered a good indicator that someone is either already alchoholic or headed in that directly quickly. I understand that you walk or bike when you drink, don't usually drive and therefore tend to see things differently. But, like I said, we have had this conversation before. I and many others of all stripes pretty well explained why drinking and driving is not just a petty matter here in the US.

And if you wish to get into this more, maybe we should honor the request and go to another thread?

Well that's pretty much bullshit then. All the alcoholics I know and the few drunk drivers I know are in a totally seperated group. The issue around DUI is about responsibility, not alcoholism. I walk and bike when I drink because I think drunk driving is irresponsible, not because I'm a smart drinker.

No dice. Drinking is a choice. If you depend that much upon driving, then just don't drink. Driving might, in some cases, be pretty close to a necessity, much more here in the US than in the Netherlands. However, drinking is absolutely and entirely optional.

It used to be sort of a "right" here in the US, too. But too many people got tired of scraping their kids off the sidewalks. And yes, it usually is/was the kids and not the drunk who got hurt or killed. The survival rates have increased with better seatbelts, but drunk driving is still a HUGE killer.. and is just not excusable, sorry.

Are you missing my point on purpose? I'm talking about people who don't drink and drive and get screwed over because they used to back when they were dumb.

Debateable, but besides the point. Many people drive and don't get into accidents, but most will get into an accident if they keep driving drunk.

Not "debateable". Fact. Of course driving drunk all the time makes you more likely to cause an accident, but that doesn't matter because we're talking about totals.

My point is that a few people not having insurance isn't going to matter because most of the time they only cost themselves money and not anybody else.

This is absolutely baloney.

Huh? Are you saying that most accidents are major damage and injury to others? Because that's just silly.

The rate of drunk driving deaths has decreased a lot since the US started its active anti-drunk driving campaigns. However, when I was younger those were figures commonly tossed out.

More than 400,000 a year? That is absurd.

At any rate, the point is that the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers is not small and hardly confined to "just the drunks".

It is small. Compared to the amount of death and injuries caused by non-drunk drivers. Compared to the deaths of a lot of other things.

I mean, any death by this is a preventable tragedy but shit simply happens. I'm talking about the broad picture.

Snorri, speaking as a former EMT, being the wife of a current first responder (firefighters have to respond to any and all wrecks here) you are just plain wrong.

And yes, there are more minor accidents than major ones, but your point is still wrong, even as you changed it from "just the drunk" to "just the drunk and passengers".

Please explain with your bizzarre logic how drunk driving is causing the majority of accidents.

[Nobunaga]

... The comparison to car insurance is flawed (I've noted before). But if one were to insist, the comparison would perhaps most accurately look something like this:

... Joe Smith has been in several accidents, found to be at fault in all of them. He averages $300,000 of damage to vehicles and property per year. Joe is shopping for some insurance.

... Joe goes to Acme Auto Insurance to get coverage. They don't even want to talk to this guy, they ask him to leave.

... In walks the Feds, who inform Acme that they are not only legally bound to cover Joe Smith, but also that they must do so at federally approved affordable rates.

... Joe walks away with a policy for $650 every six months.

... After a few similar cases, Acme goes tits-up.

...

Your first statement was correct. The next 4 just don't really apply.

... Let me connect the dots for you.

... Joe Smith equates to the "prior conditions" folks.

... Acme mirrors any private health insurance company.

... The "must cover" law is real, as I'm sure you know.

... The federally approved affordable rates is also real, which is the true killer.

... The rest is simple economics, but I'll spell it out for you just to be safe. In business, the basic goal is to bring in more money (or perhaps you're more familiar with, "obscene profit") than you have to use.

...

[Symmetry]

The really interesting question is- given that Republicans see these flaws and problems, and given that they know the law won't be repealed any time soon (acceptable, no?)

Will they propose any fixes to the bill that would deal with the problems?

Or will they do nothing, believing that Americans are being hurt?

I suspect they'll continue to say that it hurts the US, but do nothing while any hurt might be to their advantage. Any benefits will be purely Democrat, and that's sad for anyone involved.

[Nobunaga]

The really interesting question is- given that Republicans see these flaws and problems, and given that they know the law won't be repealed any time soon (acceptable, no?)

Will they propose any fixes to the bill that would deal with the problems?

Or will they do nothing, believing that Americans are being hurt?

I suspect they'll continue to say that it hurts the US, but do nothing while any hurt might be to their advantage. Any benefits will be purely Democrat, and that's sad for anyone involved.

... Sadly, you may very well be proven right.

...

[bradleybadly]

The really interesting question is- given that Republicans see these flaws and problems, and given that they know the law won't be repealed any time soon (acceptable, no?)

Will they propose any fixes to the bill that would deal with the problems?

Or will they do nothing, believing that Americans are being hurt?

I suspect they'll continue to say that it hurts the US, but do nothing while any hurt might be to their advantage. Any benefits will be purely Democrat, and that's sad for anyone involved.

They already did but most of those ideas for fixing it were ignored. There's a fundamental difference between how the 2 parties view how to fix the problem. The Democrats want the government to eventually administer both treatment and payouts. They believe it's the best way to provide health care. The Republicans have been trying to focus more on bringing down costs without extending coverage. Extending coverage to so many more people will eventually bankrupt the system. It's not that Republicans are just saying it's a bad bill. They favor more of a free market approach and Democrats don't like that generally.

Republicans basically don't trust government-run stuff and Democrats don't trust entities that are run for profit.

[Titanic]

The really interesting question is- given that Republicans see these flaws and problems, and given that they know the law won't be repealed any time soon (acceptable, no?)

Will they propose any fixes to the bill that would deal with the problems?

Or will they do nothing, believing that Americans are being hurt?

I suspect they'll continue to say that it hurts the US, but do nothing while any hurt might be to their advantage. Any benefits will be purely Democrat, and that's sad for anyone involved.

They already did but most of those ideas for fixing it were ignored. There's a fundamental difference between how the 2 parties view how to fix the problem. The Democrats want the government to eventually administer both treatment and payouts. They believe it's the best way to provide health care. The Republicans have been trying to focus more on bringing down costs without extending coverage. Extending coverage to so many more people will eventually bankrupt the system. It's not that Republicans are just saying it's a bad bill. They favor more of a free market approach and Democrats don't like that generally.

Republicans basically don't trust government-run stuff and Democrats don't trust entities that are run for profit.

Interesting take on the situation, at least its more open and less biased then most of the waffle from others on this site.

[Nobunaga]

... waffle ... waffle ...waffle ...

[Titanic]

... waffle ... waffle ...waffle ...

Wow, you are so biased.

[tzor]

Uh yes all drivers get insurance regardless of how many DUI violations they have. Because the law says they have to have insurance if they own a car.

Uh no. At least not in New York. Repeat offenders can get a suspension of their licence for up to a year. And then the fun really begins.

Driving under the influence (or DUI) is a serious offense. If you have ever had a DUI conviction, you most certainly know that the consequences can be both humiliating and expensive. Aside from the fines, attorney fees, and license suspension, there are the more long-term consequences, such as the impact on your car insurance rates and coverage.

If you are convicted of a DUI, more often than not, your insurance company will find out about the DUI and will deal with you in one of two ways. Typically, your rates will go up, sometimes substantially, or, the company will simply cancel your policy. If your insurance company raises your premiums but keeps you as an insured, you will likely be labeled a “high-risk driver.” Most states require the insurance company to provide the state motor vehicle agency (DMV, MVD) with an SR-22 Proof of Insurance Certificate, which removes your license suspension by providing the state with proof that you are insured.

While this is all starting to sound fine and dandy, the catch is that not all insurance companies offer SR-22 policies. So your policy may be non-renewed or cancelled simply because the company can no longer provide insurance for you. In some states, insurers can’t cut you off in the middle of the policy term, so be sure to check on the laws where you live.

Another less-likely scenario is that your insurance company doesn’t find out about your DUI because, for whatever reason, it slips through the cracks of red tape. Occasionally, your insurer will not raise your rates or cancel you if you’ve been a long time insured with no other blemishes on your record. But this is also pretty unlikely.

If your policy is cancelled or non-renewed, you will still be able to find insurance. It will not likely be one of the preferred carriers, like AAA, Allstate or Geico, but some other well-known companies (such as State Farm and Progressive Insurance) as well as other smaller companies will cover you and file the SR-22 for you so your license may be reinstated. Your rates will most certainly be higher, particularly because a DUI violation remains on your driving record for anywhere from five years to the rest of your life, depending on the state you’re in. To find new insurance coverage after a DUI, it’s probably best to go through an independent agent who works with many different insurance companies.

[jbrettlip]

Please don't disagree with Snorri. He is the omipotent Eurotrash icon on this site. He is also allergic to facts, and holds a passport to Liberal Utopia.

[Phatscotty]

From 2011:

"Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician‐owned hospitals"

... What's this all about?


2012:

"$500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers"

... And what's up with this?

...

... And it starts to get ugly...

2013:

"Individuals without gov't‐approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income."

"Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange"

"Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every fulltime employee"

"All non‐grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage"

"Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre‐existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)"

"Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed"

"Insurance plans must include government‐defined "essential benefits " and coverage levels"

"Impose tax on private health insurance plans"

... The 2nd and 3rd will kill jobs.

... The final five will kill private insurance (as is the goal).

...

Those are just facts and details. Those do no make me warm and fuzzy inside. Those must be dismissed. Probably lies anyways. Fatcats...racism racism hate