• 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

Bold: Congress never amends a law unless two things happen. First and what is the most common reason is that the courts strike a part of a law out. Second and is rarely the reason is if the majority of people cry out about it. Congress loves passing laws but hates amending them or getting rid of them.

Underlined: Yes it would. And without the mandate insurance companies would fold and if that happens then what are people going to do? We'll be in worse shape than we are now.

Green: So you would give the government power to dictate that you must buy things? Implanted GPS trackers here we come! Exercise machines here we come!

Insurance companies can cover sick people without going bankrupt by designing policies that reflect the increased exposure, dint cover said condition etc. however, I do believe that what should happen is for the federal government to tell states to **** themselves and undo all state "health insurance must cover x" laws.

The sun always shines on a fool
 
You have seriously never heard of a local hospital owned by a city or county?

It was seriously suggested that there are hospitals supposedly operated by state or federal government. As far as city or county-owned hospitals go, I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?
 
Last edited:
It is not my 'experience', it is the reality of all those places.

I don't think so. Have anything we can view and affirm your "reality?"

Now this is in context of this being larger than any other factor for the cost. But I will say this, it is the great number of different insurance companies that led to all the paper work (something cut down over recent years). The only real way to correct your problem is to have only one insurer, or univerisal standards and guidelines. The market won't reduce paper work.
 
Last edited:
It was seriously suggested that there are hospitals supposedly operated by state or federal government. As far as city or county-owned hospitals go, I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?

Not unless you consider New York City rural.
 
Insurance companies can cover sick people without going bankrupt by designing policies that reflect the increased exposure, dint cover said condition etc.

Insurance companies currently do that. It's called a pre-ex exclusion. And it will not cover the excluded condition for (on average) 2 years. After that the condition is covered. So it now sounds like you are fine with pre-ex.
 
It was seriously suggested that there are hospitals supposedly operated by state or federal government. As far as city or county-owned hospitals go, I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?

As others have pointed out to you, no, it is not a 'rural' thing. That being said, you do realize that most of this country is not 'big city' right?

I know some people think big cities are the only important things/places on earth, but those big cities are the minority of the earth.

I don't think so.

I would not have guessed otherwise.
 
Insurance companies currently do that. It's called a pre-ex exclusion. And it will not cover the excluded condition for (on average) 2 years. After that the condition is covered. So it now sounds like you are fine with pre-ex.

I.was never against it. However, iirc, those policies arent offered in every state for various reason. It also doesn't prevent contact termination, refusal to renew, or screwing people who got sick combined with a gap in coverage.
 
Not unless you consider New York City rural.

No, I wouldn't say NYC is rural. So what is/are the government-owned hospitals in NYC?
 
No, I wouldn't say NYC is rural. So what is/are the government-owned hospitals in NYC?

I don't know all the names. Grew up in South Brooklyn and I know that Coney Island hospital was just such a hospital.
 
I.was never against it. However, iirc, those policies arent offered in every state for various reason.

Actually, every state offers policies like that. It's the only way it is done. The way pre-ex works, is that any condition that predates the issuance of the contract by 6 months (typically) will not be reimbursed for the first 2 years (typically) of the contract. After that 2 year exclusionary period, all treatments (including those that are defined as pre-ex) will be covered for reimbursement.

It also doesn't prevent contact termination,

I assume you mean recission. Yes, an insurance company can rescind a policy if the insured lied on the application and that lie was material to the issuance of the contract. Basically, don't lie when you make a contract with another individual or company.

refusal to renew,

Almost every policy sold is renewable. In fact, IIRC there was a law in 1997, that required that all policies sold would have to be guaranteed renewable. However, if the client has an older "term" health policy, the insurance company can choose to non-renew it in only a few states. Many states do not allow them to non-renew and some states require the insurance company to continue to pay for the ongoing treatment of a condition after the company chooses to non-renew. There is a reason that an insured might want a term health policy, such as a lower cost.

I was able to find the law about guaranteed renewable. I didn't realize it was part of HIPAA.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6756342_definition-guaranteed-renewable.html

Other than the privacy portions of HIPAA (which are a big headache but probably necessary) I really do like HIPAA. They did some good with that law. I don't say that too often about things that come out of government.

Government Regulation
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates that individual health insurance plans be made guaranteed renewable and claimants cannot be dropped from coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
 
Last edited:
No, I wouldn't say NYC is rural. So what is/are the government-owned hospitals in NYC?

You didn't ask me, but I can tell you cook county hospital. BTW, because they see so many of them, they are oe of the best hospitals in the nation for gun shot wounds.
 
It was seriously suggested that there are hospitals supposedly operated by state or federal government. As far as city or county-owned hospitals go, I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?

Not operated, but owned (ie they own the brick and mortar but lease/contract with a company to operate it). This is very common in rural settings. There is a designation called "Critical Access Hospital" set up in the 90s by President Clinton for rural hospitals with 25 beds or less. They have to fall within very specific definitions the most important of which is there not being another hospital within 35 miles (25 miles in mountainous settings). CAHs are Medicare cost based reimbursed which means they receive Medicare reimbursements based on their operating costs plus an additional 1%. This basically enables these rural hospitals to stay in business since normal Medicare reimburses at a much lower rate. I am the senior financial analyst for a management company that owns and operates CAHs in five states. So, this is right up my alley.
 
As others have pointed out to you, no, it is not a 'rural' thing. That being said, you do realize that most of this country is not 'big city' right?

I know some people think big cities are the only important things/places on earth, but those big cities are the minority of the earth.
Maybe "on Earth" they are but in this country the "big city" (> 50,000) is 486 communities comprising ~70% of the population:
2010 Urban and Rural Classification Main Page

I don't think the census bureau breaks it down any farther, though one might be able to find other sites that have totaled what could be called major metropolitan areas. Those might come in under 50%.
 
The free market cannot work with the way we have everything set up in the healthcare department.
Really Sherlock?

I am impressed that you recognize that. So let's get the government completely out of health care. Completely. While we are at it let's get the governm,ent completely out of education as well.
 
Personally . . . I think that health insurance should be as easily affordable as car or home insurance: life insurance, in fact all insurance companies are taking our money on a bet that nothing's going to happen: think about that. I also don't think that employers should be required to furnish health insurance; and this from a retired Teamster nontheless!! I think that all these mandates and rules have just made the entire thing too expensive.

For it to be affordable it would have to revert to being insurance rather than prepaid health care.
 
Maybe "on Earth" they are but in this country the "big city" (> 50,000) is 486 communities comprising ~70% of the population:
2010 Urban and Rural Classification Main Page

I don't think the census bureau breaks it down any farther, though one might be able to find other sites that have totaled what could be called major metropolitan areas. Those might come in under 50%.

Perhaps you should look up land use as such. You will clearly find that even most of the USA is 'empty' land.
 
Really Sherlock?

I am impressed that you recognize that. So let's get the government completely out of health care. Completely. While we are at it let's get the governm,ent completely out of education as well.

That requires the federal gov to tell state govs to **** themselves and ignore the 10th
 
You typed more than that, I agree. That it was worthy of a response is where we disagree.

Meaning you don't want to. I understand.
 
Really Sherlock?

I am impressed that you recognize that. So let's get the government completely out of health care. Completely. While we are at it let's get the governm,ent completely out of education as well.

Which would just put people in worse situation than they are now. On both counts. No thanks.
 
Which would just put people in worse situation than they are now. On both counts. No thanks.

Are you serious, you think that government is the supreme landlord of the people? I don't think so. The people did just fine without big daddy government.
 
Are you serious, you think that government is the supreme landlord of the people? I don't think so. The people did just fine without big daddy government.

And just how in the world did you get that from my post?

There hasn't been a time in human history where humans did not create some form of government. Even the caveman did it. So no, there has never been a time when we were without "big daddy government". I recognize this fact. But that doesn't mean that I think that the government, any government, is the "supreme landlord of the people". But if you think that having no government involved in healthcare or education is a good thing then you're just fooling yourself.

If you look through history to a time when the prevailing government of <insert country here> purposely didn't attempt to educate the masses and purposely didn't help with healthcare and all that you will find is disease and ignorance. Yeah you may say that people can do it but the question is will they? And will they do it in such a way as to allow EVERYONE the chance at a good education and have good healthcare? The answer will be no. People that do not have the money to pay for a good education or good healthcare will go without. History supports that assertion. You say that charity will help those that can't do it on their own? Charity alone will not help everyone. If that were the case then no one in this country would go digging through dumpsters and trash cans just to try and find one bite to eat.

I may not trust the government, but I sure am not going to throw it out with the bath water either. The government does provide needed services and I believe that education and healthcare is a couple of those services.
 
Back
Top Bottom