• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Insurers Profit From Health Law They Fought

You don't have to be disabled to have outrageously high prescription medication costs. Cancer, AIDS, MS, lots of unanticipated things come with massive prescription medication costs.

Those are disabilities though.

I agree with you that predictable sorts of expenses would be better handled with HSAs than insurance, but I don't agree that prescription medication costs are predictable.

Not all prescription costs are predictable but most people would be fine.
Dealing with the unlikely, through state disability coverage, is more ideal than with giving everyone to the hilt coverage on everything, through a single payer.

Singapore uses the government sponsored HSA system and their GDP costs are lower than every country in Europe.
Even with private spending higher than ours.
 
Those are disabilities though.

Whoa, so you're saying the government should cover the costs of things like Cancer, AIDS and MS? That basically equates to a single payer system. That's where most the money goes- those sorts of conditions and the last 6 months of people's lives. I'd be on board with that, but I am shocked you would be.
 
Whoa, so you're saying the government should cover the costs of things like Cancer, AIDS and MS? That basically equates to a single payer system. That's where most the money goes- those sorts of conditions and the last 6 months of people's lives. I'd be on board with that, but I am shocked you would be.

They already do.
 
They already do.

Not sure how you mean. If somebody goes bankrupt paying for a disability and ends up in abject poverty, medicaid kicks in. Or they can get disability insurance, but that doesn't cover the medical bills. If you have insurance and are solvent, the insurance company, not the government, pays for your cancer treatment.
 
Not sure how you mean. If somebody goes bankrupt paying for a disability and ends up in abject poverty, medicaid kicks in. Or they can get disability insurance, but that doesn't cover the medical bills. If you have insurance and are solvent, the insurance company, not the government, pays for your cancer treatment.

If you have cancer or MS, you can get SSD or SSI (aka government coverage).
HIV and AIDS patients have coverage from the government for their medications, it's a special program.
 
If you have cancer or MS, you can get SSD or SSI (aka government coverage).
HIV and AIDS patients have coverage from the government for their medications, it's a special program.

I think you're mixing up SSD, SSI and Medicare. SSD and SSI are fixed amount payments. If you have a disability and have paid into social security for some number of years, you can get SSD. If you have a disability, have paid into social security for some number of years, and are living in poverty, you can get both SSI and SSD. Neither of them are based on medical expenses, they're checks you get in the mail for fixed amounts. SSD is meant to replace a portion of your income because you can't work at the time due to your disability, it isn't about medical expenses.

Then, after you're on SSD for 24 months you can apply for medicaid, but you can only get that if you're in poverty too.
 
I think you're mixing up SSD, SSI and Medicare. SSD and SSI are fixed amount payments. If you have a disability and have paid into social security for some number of years, you can get SSD. If you have a disability, have paid into social security for some number of years, and are living in poverty, you can get both SSI and SSD. Neither of them are based on medical expenses, they're checks you get in the mail for fixed amounts. SSD is meant to replace a portion of your income because you can't work at the time due to your disability, it isn't about medical expenses.

Then, after you're on SSD for 24 months you can apply for medicaid, but you can only get that if you're in poverty too.

SSD is about medical expenses for a lot of people.
If you get MS, cancer, etc and it's expected to last at least 12 months, you can get SSD or SSI.

SSD is not for people who live in poverty, it's for people who have paid the required amount of credits and have a qualified disability for at least 12 months.

A lot (and I mean a lot of people) with inborn disabilities are on SSI, not because they can't work, but because they can't get any reasonable medical coverage.
I have someone like this in my family, where the sole reason they are on SSI is because of their medical coverage needs, that no regular insurance could provide for.
This is a legitimate issue regarding government coverage, they should cover disabled people, regardless of how many credits they've earned and regardless of their income level.
 
If you get MS, cancer, etc and it's expected to last at least 12 months, you can get SSD or SSI.

SSD is not for people who live in poverty, it's for people who have paid the required amount of credits and have a qualified disability for at least 12 months.

A lot (and I mean a lot of people) with inborn disabilities are on SSI, not because they can't work, but because they can't get any reasonable medical coverage.
I have someone like this in my family, where the sole reason they are on SSI is because of their medical coverage needs, that no regular insurance could provide for.
This is a legitimate issue regarding government coverage, they should cover disabled people, regardless of how many credits they've earned and regardless of their income level.

Right, I agree with all that, but that isn't what you were saying before. You were saying the government covers the medical costs of things like cancer outright. What I'm hearing you say now is that SSD and potentially SSI provide a little financial help to people with cancer. That is true for sure.
 
Right, I agree with all that, but that isn't what you were saying before. You were saying the government covers the medical costs of things like cancer outright. What I'm hearing you say now is that SSD and potentially SSI provide a little financial help to people with cancer. That is true for sure.

No, getting SSD and SSI automatically qualify you for state medical benefits.
That's why a lot of people are on these programs.

Medicaid, pays for nearly 100% of all the medical costs, the check from SSI/SSD is practically nothing.
 
No, getting SSD and SSI automatically qualify you for state medical benefits.
That's why a lot of people are on these programs.

Medicaid, pays for nearly 100% of all the medical costs, the check from SSI/SSD is practically nothing.

Yeah, that's right. Medicaid does. To qualify for medicaid you need to have already been on SSD for 24 months first, and Medicaid is means tested. So, long story short, somebody who has insurance and has enough savings to cover the expenses their insurance doesn't, isn't getting their medical expenses paid by the government (although they may get a modest SSD benefit each month).
 
Yeah, that's right. Medicaid does. To qualify for medicaid you need to have already been on SSD for 24 months first, and Medicaid is means tested. So, long story short, somebody who has insurance and has enough savings to cover the expenses their insurance doesn't, isn't getting their medical expenses paid by the government (although they may get a modest SSD benefit each month).

Here's the kicker for that though.
They may let their medical bills accrue for that 29 month period, until they become eligible to participate.
SSI beneficiaries do not have to wait the 29 month period.

Also the 29 month period is for eligibility for Medicare, not Medicaid and the 29 month wait starts at the date of onset for the disability, not the date in which SSD started.
 
Here's the kicker for that though.
They may let their medical bills accrue for that 29 month period, until they become eligible to participate.
SSI beneficiaries do not have to wait the 29 month period.

Also the 29 month period is for eligibility for Medicare, not Medicaid and the 29 month wait starts at the date of onset for the disability, not the date in which SSD started.

Hmm I didn't know that.

Still though, the point remains- if you just have an HSA and no coverage for meds and you get a condition that is going to require $10k/month in meds, you're boned. Yeah, you'll probably get the meds one way or another, but not until you've gone completely bankrupt, sold your house, and are living in poverty.
 
Hmm I didn't know that.

Still though, the point remains- if you just have an HSA and no coverage for meds and you get a condition that is going to require $10k/month in meds, you're boned. Yeah, you'll probably get the meds one way or another, but not until you've gone completely bankrupt, sold your house, and are living in poverty.

See though, I'm not advocating a single solution system.
I'm advocating a multifaceted system.

One where there is a private market to service the needs of the majority and another where there is a government system to care for the disabled.
The system for disabled people is broken, in my opinion and should be mended before we go towards overhauling anything within the private market.
 
The post office was actually formed for a different reason- because the mail delivery was the backbone of our command and control system in those days. I don't really have an opinion either way on it's role today. It probably does force the private delivery services to keep their prices lower than they would otherwise... But at the same time it's mostly just become a mechanism for snail mail spam. Might be time for it to go.

As I stated before, I think a public option is great, however, I don't believe we could keep the spending from going out of control. Much like the post office. You could pick almost any other public service offered by the government and then look at its private sector counterpart. Which one is run more efficiently? Which one actually stays on budget?
 
They are creating their own trust fund to mitigate their loses in the future.

On a serious note, their profit margin went from 6.8% to 8.2%. Not a big jump.

Exactly. Obamacare hasn't taken affect yet.
 
According to the NPR program I am currently listening to, the healthcare industry is also leading the job growth numbers over the past year.
 
According to the NPR program I am currently listening to, the healthcare industry is also leading the job growth numbers over the past year.

They are getting additional bodies for the paperwork.
 
SSD is about medical expenses for a lot of people.
If you get MS, cancer, etc and it's expected to last at least 12 months, you can get SSD or SSI.

SSD is not for people who live in poverty, it's for people who have paid the required amount of credits and have a qualified disability for at least 12 months.

A lot (and I mean a lot of people) with inborn disabilities are on SSI, not because they can't work, but because they can't get any reasonable medical coverage.
I have someone like this in my family, where the sole reason they are on SSI is because of their medical coverage needs, that no regular insurance could provide for.
This is a legitimate issue regarding government coverage, they should cover disabled people, regardless of how many credits they've earned and regardless of their income level.
Why should they cover them? I mean this in all sincerity, what is the justification for taking money and resources from others and giving it those with "disabilities"?
 
Why should they cover them? I mean this in all sincerity, what is the justification for taking money and resources from others and giving it those with "disabilities"?

It's not about giving them money, it's about making sure they have treatment for their medical needs.
In fact, I'm in favor of eliminating the check part of disability and just sticking with medical care.

A lot of disabled folks can still work, they just choose not to because they qualify.
In a practical sense though, I don't believe government should bail out bad behavior, but in cases of faults of nature, disabled folks are the real lesser among us.
 
Insurance companies spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it would raise costs and disrupt coverage. Instead, profit margins at the companies widened to levels not seen since before the recession, a Bloomberg Government study shows.

Insurers led by WellPoint Inc. (WLP), the biggest by membership, recorded their highest combined quarterly net income of the past decade after the law was signed in 2010, said Peter Gosselin, the study author and senior health-care analyst for Bloomberg Government. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health-Care Index rose 36 percent in the period, four times more than the S&P 500.

The law doesn't take effect until 2014.
 
It doesn't apply in full untill 2014.
Some parts have already taken effect and are having an effect.
 
It doesn't apply in full untill 2014.
Some parts have already taken effect and are having an effect.

Not the parts which would drive insurers' revenues.
 
Not the parts which would drive insurers' revenues.

Correct, and of course this is not a new thing. The health care industry has been expanding for decades, and costs have been rising at double the rate of inflation.
 
Insurance companies spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it would raise costs and disrupt coverage. Instead, profit margins at the companies widened to levels not seen since before the recession, a Bloomberg Government study shows.

Insurers led by WellPoint Inc. (WLP), the biggest by membership, recorded their highest combined quarterly net income of the past decade after the law was signed in 2010, said Peter Gosselin, the study author and senior health-care analyst for Bloomberg Government. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health-Care Index rose 36 percent in the period, four times more than the S&P 500.
“The industry that was the loudest, most persistent critic of this law, the industry whose analysts and executives predicted it would suffer immensely because of the law, has thrived,” Gosselin said. “There is a shift to government work under way that is going to represent a fundamental change in their business model.”
Health insurers contributed $86.2 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose the law after Obama administration officials criticized the plans for enriching themselves by raising customer premiums. America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington lobbyist, still says on its website the law will raise costs and cause consumers to lose coverage.

Insurers Profit From Health Law They Fought - Bloomberg


Seems like these guys might have wasted 86 million bucks.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Insurance loves it when government tells everyone they have to buy insurance.
 
They succeeded in killing the public option, so for them it was money well spent.

The insurers won - they fought a public option because that would have forced them to bring down costs by streamlining overhead and lowering profits to stay competitive.

considering how much they lobbied to kill the public option, the article should have been titled "Insurers profit from health law they bought."

Yeah, the sad reality is that the insurance companies/tea party managed to kill the parts of the plan designed to keep costs/profit taking down.

So you think the insurance company/tea party hysteria had no impact? Why do you think they did it?

Why couldn't Obama have vetoed PPACA then? Why didn't he?

No one here is denying the OP. So Obama willingly signed into law this legislation that worsens the problem. And you all are okay with that?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom