• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

People do have these things and not die, and are treated. And we pay. Until you you either do die, or we decide to let you die, you cannot opt out of the system. You are already engaged. We're just paying for your irresponsibility.
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.
 
There is a tiny minority of people who go through their whole life without having to see a doctor, but of that tiny minority, an even tinier minority will manage to avoid significant health care costs at the very end.

Some startling statistics:
You make a very strong case for death panels.

 
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.
Typical attitude. Just leave business alone and they'll make money, everything will be OK, they can police themselves. Hence, the 2008 Crash.
 
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.

You mean let people die if the can't pay. That is worse than a "death panel" isn't it? Do you think money should determine whether you live of die?
 
You mean let people die if the can't pay. That is worse than a "death panel" isn't it? Do you think money should determine whether you live of die?
Certainly. If you feel strongly about it get you and all of your liberal friends together, donate your time, effort and money, and be happy. It is not enough for you to vote in someone who will take my money to do what you consider to be good deeds.
 
I agree that Americans want more affordable healthcare. However, and I think (believe it or not) that the government should have a role in the solution. The problem is not Healthcare Reform. It is generally uncontested that some reform is needed. I think that it is this particular bill that is bad- an "overfixing" of the problem. Matter of fact, I don't believe that reform of the healthcare system was the legislative intent. I believe the intent was to stifle (overpower) capitalism- and that is where it will fail, I think.

The limit of the government's involvement is to create a solution where none exists in the private marketplace. No solution currently exists for people with particular pre-existing conditions. They can not get insurance. (And this is not the insurance companies' fault, and in many cases, it isn't the patient's fault either.) This is the only area in which the government's intervention is appropriate. Because medicare already covers people who are certified as disabled, regardless of their age, it could simply be suggested that the government could pass a law making it a "disability" to have pre-existing conditions preventing coverage elsewhere. In addition to rolling back other laws and reforming tort rules, this would just about fix it.

Everything else should be left to the marketplace. With tort reform and less government interventions, costs will come down on their own.

So all of us healthy people should keep paying the insurers and until we get sick, and then the company drops us and the Govt. pays? You think that will bring costs down?
A persons healthcare is no place for a "free market", 1st of all there is no such thing and no one shops around when they have a heart attack.
Why should a company make 20% to 35% profit on our premiums for cutting checks to providers? What good do they do anyway?
 
Typical attitude. Just leave business alone and they'll make money, everything will be OK, they can police themselves. Hence, the 2008 Crash.
I bet you have never actually considered that the reason why health care costs so much is because of government involvement.
 
I bet you have never actually considered that the reason why health care costs so much is because of government involvement.
I use my imagination for more important things.


Ed:
It's amazing how some people carry on about "government involvement" but stick their nose into people's morality every chance they get.
 
Last edited:
And these attempts to save face and make it look like I'm bailing? Nobody who's dealt with you over the long term buys it.

Not concerned about that. Those who speak as you do don't have much to brag about in terms of reputation. But it is never me walking away calling someone names. That I can point to rather clearly.

But frankly this type of conversation is pointless, and it was initiated by you. That says what needs to be said.
 
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.

That is an option, but we will have to turn people away, even those with emergency conditions, and health over all in this country will suffer, as more will be without access. There are consequences for that as well.
 
I'm tried of seeing "tort reform" as a viable solution to the health care cost problem. Its a drop in the bucket and many who purpose it want to limit total payout to the point that the reimbursement may not cover the cost to fix the botched medical procedure.

What needs to happen is force insurance companies to offer insurance to the sick: we'll cover all of your medical needs outside your preexisting condition alignments, force insurance to compete with each other: reduce some regulation that prevents insurance company start-ups, allow insurance to be sold nationally, force medical providers to bring cost more in line with what they charge insurance companies: if an insurance company is charged 10000 an individual shouldn't be charged 4x that amount, destroy the monopoly of care: tell states to **** themselves and remove the road blocks that prevent over seas trained doctors from practicing and non-doctor personnel from preforming "doctor duties" i.e. a ears, eyes, and throat "doctors" duties can be provided by a nurse, stiches fine by an RN, midwifery, etc

The above will do wonders to reduce cost but outside libertarian circles no one is suggesting to actually take on insurance companies or doctors. One of the reason republocrats want insurance sold across state lines is because 1} state laws prevent cost from actually decreasing because most states require certain things to be in their minimum coverage and 2) economics of scale would further enrich the largest insurance companies who already nearly operate nation wide

Personally, I think the public option combined with all these other libertarian proposals would lead to the best and cheapest health care in the world. In fact, the public option is extremely ready to implement, simply allow people to buy into medicaid! (I also think medicaid, in this form should replace medicare but that's a different topic)
The sun always shines on a fool
 
It's amazing to me that you also trust that the justice system is not biased towards big money lawyers and therefore ALL abuses of the system are swiftly punished and punshed so firmly that they would never do those things again. As long as we have a private system that values profit and shareholder value above peoples lives there will be abuse of the pre-existing condition "loophole". I sincerly hope you are not one of the employees who's job performance and salary is judged by the amount of "rescessions" you get. But the reality is that as much as I would like to "trust you" insurers are all tarred with the same brush thru no fault of your own. We need to end the madness of accepting premiums until someone gets sick and THEN deciding they aren't covered. 20,000 Americans faced that nightmare in the last 5 years.

Recession is a period of economic downturn. No, I did not get paid based on the number of recessions. Did you by chance mean recission?

You may be surprised by the number of insureds that lie on insurance applications. Yes, I guess it is possible that some "forgot" they had a previous MI (heart attack) or CVA (stroke) - but I doubt it. It would be ideal if prospective insureds were just honest on their application, then they would have nothing to worry about. Your link from an obviously biased source not withstanding. And yes, the DOI will come down hard on an insurance company engaged in behaviour that is unethical. Sorry that you disagree, but I am certain of it.
 
Looking of the free ride I see. Why am I not surprised?

Rates are based on how much they PAY OUT to those that actually treat people. If you can't see how limiting their take to 20% keeps them in check then I give up.

Why could they not pay out more, keep more and raise the rates? If it's an 80/20 cut, why can't they just spend more, keep more, and charge more?
 
Why could they not pay out more, keep more and raise the rates? If it's an 80/20 cut, why can't they just spend more, keep more, and charge more?

He uses the same kind of argument that those who want to impose "windfall taxes" on oil companies use. It's all totally clueless about how a business works.
 
If #441 wasn't enough for you then 443-444 should have been.

*sigh

iguanaman said:
Ha, ha, you crack me up. Everybody has some pre-existing condition and ins. companies often use any little illness you might have forgotten to deny coverage for major illness that was not pre-existing. It is racket they use to get rid of sick people and increase profit.

Neomalthusian said:
Who's gonna keep paying a company that reneges on its agreement using fine print? That's either a contract not made in good faith (civil law matter), or at least a reason for customers to abandon/boycott the scam and watch the company crash and burn.

The entire industry does this so there are no other options except NONE. Not many people are going to take that option.

So you're saying people would rather be scammed than save for their own medical care?

If insurance companies all scam their customers, how do they still have customers? If the choice is be scammed or don't be scammed, people are going to choose to be scammed?

Perhaps the point is that it isn't in fact standard protocol for insurance companies to breach their contracts with their customers, that is a rare exception that's being way overblown by folks like you and iguanaman.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but which justice wrote the law?

The sun always shines on a fool



The court won't rule on that issue because there isn't any constitutional Queston in regards to telling as business what it can and can't do. If the court does rule on that they'll VCR over turning 100s of years if legal precedence and open the flood gates. That's an issue confess will have to address

The sun always shines on a fool

If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", the insurers fancy word for dropping you when you get sick AND you will still get to pay 20% of your premium to cover the young people who don't think they need insurance. Let's all cheer those Justices on!
 
Last edited:
If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", their fancy word for dropping you when you get sick. Let's all cheer!

"Rescind," you mean.

20,000 people? What's that, ~7 out of every hundred thousand?
 
Perhaps the point is that it isn't in fact standard protocol for insurance companies to breach their contracts with their customers, that is a rare exception that's being way overblown by folks like you and iguanaman.

Good point. For every 1 insurance company that has been found to be in violation of hte law through illegal recissions, etc, you can easily find 10 that haven't.
 
Why could they not pay out more, keep more and raise the rates? If it's an 80/20 cut, why can't they just spend more, keep more, and charge more?

I guess they could -- if they were all colluding on price, which would be illegal. Otherwise, there's this thing called market competition.
 
If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", the insurers fancy word for dropping you when you get sick AND you will still get to pay 20% of your premium to cover the young people who don't think they need insurance. Let's all cheer those Justices on!

It is not a fancy word for dropping someone when they get sick. It is a fancy word used in contract law, meaning to do away with the contract (not just insurance), and bring it to a point where no contract ever existed - making each party as whole as possible - typically due to misrepresentation by one party to the contract, but there could be other causes. You may actually want to read how it works before trying to talk about it as if you have any clue what it is.
 
Last edited:
I guess they could -- if they were all colluding on price, which would be illegal. Otherwise, there's this thing called market competition.

Why couldn't this thing called market competition be the thing that puts downward pressure on their 30%+ overhead?

IOW, if the overhead and executive salaries are so wasteful and unnecessary, which is what liberal folks tell us, then why hasn't competition taken care of it?
 
Last edited:
Good point. For every 1 insurance company that has been found to be in violation of hte law through illegal recissions, etc, you can easily find 10 that haven't.

They don't have to break the law to drop you. They just have to wait until your next renewal date, when they can tell you to go pound sand. Of course you can then just go to another insurance company ... oops! Now you have a preexisting condition!

Better just declare bankruptcy and get it over with.

Let's hope the SC legislates from the bench so we can save that awesome system.
 
Let's hope the SC legislates from the bench so we can save that awesome system.

"Legislates from the bench." :lamo
 
Why couldn't this thing called market competition be the thing that puts downward pressure on their 30%+ overhead?

Well, let's get some facts straight. First, the law requires them to spend 85% of premiums on medical care -- not 80%. Second, most insurers are already pretty close to that numbers, so it wouldn't be a huge change. Third, they're all for-profit companies, right? Why don't they just raise their rates and make more money? Don't they want to make more money?
 
Back
Top Bottom