[dbapig]

I read this piece while back:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-wrong-with-american-healthcare.htm

“In 1915 and 1916, bills were introduced into Congress that would have produced a structure similar to those in place today throughout Western Europe. Initially the AMA—the American Medical Association—was all for it. After all, doctors had been accustomed to collecting only 50 percent of their bills, so 100 percent looked like a good deal.”

That’s right, at the beginning of 1900’s, US doctors used to be able to collect only about half of their bills.

[dbapig]

I read this piece while back:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-wrong-with-american-healthcare.htm

“In 1915 and 1916, bills were introduced into Congress that would have produced a structure similar to those in place today throughout Western Europe. Initially the AMA—the American Medical Association—was all for it. After all, doctors had been accustomed to collecting only 50 percent of their bills, so 100 percent looked like a good deal.”

That’s right, at the beginning of 1900’s, US doctors used to be able to collect only about half of their bills.

[dbapig]

I read this piece while back:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-wrong-with-american-healthcare.htm

“In 1915 and 1916, bills were introduced into Congress that would have produced a structure similar to those in place today throughout Western Europe. Initially the AMA—the American Medical Association—was all for it. After all, doctors had been accustomed to collecting only 50 percent of their bills, so 100 percent looked like a good deal.”

That’s right, at the beginning of 1900’s, US doctors used to be able to collect only about half of their bills.

[dbapig]

I read this piece while back:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-wrong-with-american-healthcare.htm

“In 1915 and 1916, bills were introduced into Congress that would have produced a structure similar to those in place today throughout Western Europe. Initially the AMA—the American Medical Association—was all for it. After all, doctors had been accustomed to collecting only 50 percent of their bills, so 100 percent looked like a good deal.”

That’s right, at the beginning of 1900’s, US doctors used to be able to collect only about half of their bills.

[dbapig]

I read this piece while back:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-wrong-with-american-healthcare.htm

“In 1915 and 1916, bills were introduced into Congress that would have produced a structure similar to those in place today throughout Western Europe. Initially the AMA—the American Medical Association—was all for it. After all, doctors had been accustomed to collecting only 50 percent of their bills, so 100 percent looked like a good deal.”

That’s right, at the beginning of 1900’s, US doctors used to be able to collect only about half of their bills.

[dbapig]

Not the perfect solution but much better than what we’ve got.

Talking about health insurance, I heard on NPR about the origin of Blue Shields, you know the one that recently jacked up premium near 40%?

Blue Shields started out in 1930’s as a sort of non-profit health insurance organization. Boy scouts and preachers preached and canvassed neighborhoods to have citizen sign up for it. The goal of Blue Shield was HEALTH of people. But as for-profit, private insurance companies started offering ‘better’ deals to young/healthy people, more and more sick/older people ended up with Blue Shields.

To combat this loss, Blue Shields thought they could compete better if they went private and offered IPO to raise capital. And we all know what that’s come to… 40% increase in insurance premium…

For-profit insurance companies cannot be offering health insurance. If they do, strong competition should exist to keep them honest. Just think about it, a for-profit company will do whatever it can to raise revenue (as it rightfully should). And than means people who really need it being kicked out of the program…

I just hope it will really happen…

[dbapig]

Not the perfect solution but much better than what we’ve got.

Talking about health insurance, I heard on NPR about the origin of Blue Shields, you know the one that recently jacked up premium near 40%?

Blue Shields started out in 1930’s as a sort of non-profit health insurance organization. Boy scouts and preachers preached and canvassed neighborhoods to have citizen sign up for it. The goal of Blue Shield was HEALTH of people. But as for-profit, private insurance companies started offering ‘better’ deals to young/healthy people, more and more sick/older people ended up with Blue Shields.

To combat this loss, Blue Shields thought they could compete better if they went private and offered IPO to raise capital. And we all know what that’s come to… 40% increase in insurance premium…

For-profit insurance companies cannot be offering health insurance. If they do, strong competition should exist to keep them honest. Just think about it, a for-profit company will do whatever it can to raise revenue (as it rightfully should). And than means people who really need it being kicked out of the program…

I just hope it will really happen…

[dbapig]

Not the perfect solution but much better than what we’ve got.

Talking about health insurance, I heard on NPR about the origin of Blue Shields, you know the one that recently jacked up premium near 40%?

Blue Shields started out in 1930’s as a sort of non-profit health insurance organization. Boy scouts and preachers preached and canvassed neighborhoods to have citizen sign up for it. The goal of Blue Shield was HEALTH of people. But as for-profit, private insurance companies started offering ‘better’ deals to young/healthy people, more and more sick/older people ended up with Blue Shields.

To combat this loss, Blue Shields thought they could compete better if they went private and offered IPO to raise capital. And we all know what that’s come to… 40% increase in insurance premium…

For-profit insurance companies cannot be offering health insurance. If they do, strong competition should exist to keep them honest. Just think about it, a for-profit company will do whatever it can to raise revenue (as it rightfully should). And than means people who really need it being kicked out of the program…

I just hope it will really happen…

[dbapig]

Not the perfect solution but much better than what we’ve got.

Talking about health insurance, I heard on NPR about the origin of Blue Shields, you know the one that recently jacked up premium near 40%?

Blue Shields started out in 1930’s as a sort of non-profit health insurance organization. Boy scouts and preachers preached and canvassed neighborhoods to have citizen sign up for it. The goal of Blue Shield was HEALTH of people. But as for-profit, private insurance companies started offering ‘better’ deals to young/healthy people, more and more sick/older people ended up with Blue Shields.

To combat this loss, Blue Shields thought they could compete better if they went private and offered IPO to raise capital. And we all know what that’s come to… 40% increase in insurance premium…

For-profit insurance companies cannot be offering health insurance. If they do, strong competition should exist to keep them honest. Just think about it, a for-profit company will do whatever it can to raise revenue (as it rightfully should). And than means people who really need it being kicked out of the program…

I just hope it will really happen…

[dbapig]

Not the perfect solution but much better than what we’ve got.

Talking about health insurance, I heard on NPR about the origin of Blue Shields, you know the one that recently jacked up premium near 40%?

Blue Shields started out in 1930’s as a sort of non-profit health insurance organization. Boy scouts and preachers preached and canvassed neighborhoods to have citizen sign up for it. The goal of Blue Shield was HEALTH of people. But as for-profit, private insurance companies started offering ‘better’ deals to young/healthy people, more and more sick/older people ended up with Blue Shields.

To combat this loss, Blue Shields thought they could compete better if they went private and offered IPO to raise capital. And we all know what that’s come to… 40% increase in insurance premium…

For-profit insurance companies cannot be offering health insurance. If they do, strong competition should exist to keep them honest. Just think about it, a for-profit company will do whatever it can to raise revenue (as it rightfully should). And than means people who really need it being kicked out of the program…

I just hope it will really happen…

[dbapig]

[quote=edna_mode]Another interesting twist is the mention that the profiled person has been “socking away money for retirement”. If she was doing it in an ERISA-qualified plan (most pensions and 401(k) are), then that money is largely JUDGEMENT-PROOF. A quick google suggests the only way for another party to take away retirement accounts is for family support (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_pension.html). The Supreme Court upheld that IRAs are similarly shielded in 2005.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Apr4.html)

So another reason to top up those retirement accounts every year — not only do you diversify your taxation liability, you protect some of your assets against bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.[/quote]

Good to know!

[dbapig]

[quote=edna_mode]Another interesting twist is the mention that the profiled person has been “socking away money for retirement”. If she was doing it in an ERISA-qualified plan (most pensions and 401(k) are), then that money is largely JUDGEMENT-PROOF. A quick google suggests the only way for another party to take away retirement accounts is for family support (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_pension.html). The Supreme Court upheld that IRAs are similarly shielded in 2005.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Apr4.html)

So another reason to top up those retirement accounts every year — not only do you diversify your taxation liability, you protect some of your assets against bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.[/quote]

Good to know!

[dbapig]

[quote=edna_mode]Another interesting twist is the mention that the profiled person has been “socking away money for retirement”. If she was doing it in an ERISA-qualified plan (most pensions and 401(k) are), then that money is largely JUDGEMENT-PROOF. A quick google suggests the only way for another party to take away retirement accounts is for family support (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_pension.html). The Supreme Court upheld that IRAs are similarly shielded in 2005.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Apr4.html)

So another reason to top up those retirement accounts every year — not only do you diversify your taxation liability, you protect some of your assets against bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.[/quote]

Good to know!

[dbapig]

[quote=edna_mode]Another interesting twist is the mention that the profiled person has been “socking away money for retirement”. If she was doing it in an ERISA-qualified plan (most pensions and 401(k) are), then that money is largely JUDGEMENT-PROOF. A quick google suggests the only way for another party to take away retirement accounts is for family support (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_pension.html). The Supreme Court upheld that IRAs are similarly shielded in 2005.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Apr4.html)

So another reason to top up those retirement accounts every year — not only do you diversify your taxation liability, you protect some of your assets against bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.[/quote]

Good to know!

[dbapig]

[quote=edna_mode]Another interesting twist is the mention that the profiled person has been “socking away money for retirement”. If she was doing it in an ERISA-qualified plan (most pensions and 401(k) are), then that money is largely JUDGEMENT-PROOF. A quick google suggests the only way for another party to take away retirement accounts is for family support (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_pension.html). The Supreme Court upheld that IRAs are similarly shielded in 2005.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Apr4.html)

So another reason to top up those retirement accounts every year — not only do you diversify your taxation liability, you protect some of your assets against bankruptcy, lawsuits, etc.[/quote]

Good to know!

[Author]

Posts