Page 51 of 122 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #501
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    "Legislates from the bench."
    Yeah, funny how it's only "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" when it's conservative laws that are overturned, isn't it?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #502
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,354

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    *sigh








    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.
    Silly, they don't scam healthy customers which are the vast majority, they take their premiums with a smile. But you have NO idea whether your insurance would cover you or not if you got a REALLY expensive illness. Some states even allow domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. You would be amazed how far they will go to save a million bucks or so. There were 20,000 "insured" in the the last 5 years who were dropped when they got sick so this is not "overblown" in my opinion. Obamacare ends this practice for good, if you have paid up insurance policy, no company can drop your coverage for any reason except fraud. Do you think it is OK for insures to take your money for years and then when they are needed, scramble to find "excuses" not to pay up? Do you think it's OK for insurers to reward employees for denying coverage after someone gets sick?

  3. #503
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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?
    I realize it wasn't your claim that insurance companies in general are hogging 30% or more of their revenue, but others here have claimed it. What's the point in mandating this level of payout, if we have this thing called market competition?

    Something has prevented normal competitive forces from controlling health insurance costs, and I think a big part of it is the rising costs of the thing that's being insured, which is health CARE. The cost of the actual services, our increased need for them over time as we become less healthy, and our general expectation that once we spend over a certain amount of money, the collective should pay for everything else. Whether companies collude or not, both the care and the insurance costs are rising. The system needs more direct consumer choice and price discipline, not less.

  4. #504
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,354

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    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.
    So it doesn't mean dropping you when you get sick? Funny because that's what it meant when it happened to 20,000 insured Americans in the last 5 years.

  5. #505
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,518

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Yeah, funny how it's only "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" when it's conservative laws that are overturned, isn't it?
    When I say anything of the kind, then you'll have a point.

    Meanwhile, you'll have to explain how striking down the mandate as being beyond the powers delegated by the Constitution is "legislating." What new law are they making?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #506
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I realize it wasn't your claim that insurance companies in general are hogging 30% or more of their revenue, but others here have claimed it. What's the point in mandating this level of payout, if we have this thing called market competition?

    Something has prevented normal competitive forces from controlling health insurance costs, and I think a big part of it is the rising costs of the thing that's being insured, which is health CARE. The cost of the actual services, our increased need for them over time as we become less healthy, and our general expectation that once we spend over a certain amount of money, the collective should pay for everything else. Whether companies collude or not, both the care and the insurance costs are rising. The system needs more direct consumer choice and price discipline, not less.
    On the first point, the companies have determined what is for them an acceptable net profit. That figure would be capped under AHCA. Could they get around it by raising premiums and paying out more for the same care? I think it would be pretty complicated and hard to disguise. Suddenly your insurance company, out of the goodness of its heart, decides to start paying more for the same procedure or medication? I think there would be enough of them not willing to risk that class action/criminal prosecution to prevent it from happening. In any case, the law is actually good for the insurance companies, which why most of them support it. They will lose a point or two of profit, but they'll make up for that in volume, i.e. 30 million new customers.

    But I absolutely agree that our health care system is anything but a free market. There has to be transparency for a market to be truly free, and our system is about as opaque as you can imagine. Most Americans don't know how much they're paying for insurance, let alone what the care they receive costs. Even if they did know what the costs were, there's little incentive to price shop. And even if there was incentive to price shop, most folks don't know enough about medicine or the health care system to do so rationally. Basically the whole thing is a scam run on consumers and the government by insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. And all the money those groups can bring to bear prevents anything from changing. It was a non-minor miracle that AHCA got through. Imperfect as it is, it would be a shame to see it vetoed by the Supreme Court.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #507
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    *sigh

    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.
    Your question is meaningless because you only provided one viable option. The posts I referenced were sufficient to show that your other option was not a viable option.

    I said nothing at all about breach of contract and this is the first time you've mentioned it. As buck has repeatedly stated, and I concur with him on that point, insurance companies do have a state-level government watchdog. That doesn't mean fishy things don't happen on a regular basis or that it's easy to contest what you think is an unfair action or decision by an insurance company.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #508
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    When I say anything of the kind, then you'll have a point.

    Meanwhile, you'll have to explain how striking down the mandate as being beyond the powers delegated by the Constitution is "legislating." What new law are they making?
    One can legislate by repealing existing legislation, which is exactly what they would be doing. Judicial activism.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #509
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,518

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    One can legislate by repealing existing legislation, which is exactly what they would be doing. Judicial activism.
    So any time a court strikes down a law, it's "judicial activism"?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #510
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    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.
    Does that mean if no coverage has been used, as in the insurance company didn't pay out any money, then the person gets all their premiums refunded?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Page 51 of 122 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •