• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

finebead said:
We'll disagree on the definition of extremely expensive until more data is available. Maybe you can cite some specifics. But it is extremely more valuable to have a policy that can't be cancelled if you get cancer and need a lot of care, right?

I don't think we can say Obamacare is a disaster yet, unless you are a political operative talking your side.

All the people who were rejected by the health ins. company death panels due to their pre-existing conditions seem very happy, and they have signed up. That is success, not disaster.
Click to expand...

Yeah? can you show us the numbers of people by state that have actually signed up for insurance through Obamacare?

You can't, and do you know why you can't?

Since the bungled launch of Obamacare’s insurance exchanges, the White House has been touting overwhelming interest — going so far as to blame high demand for many of the federal site’s technical malfunctions. But browsers only matter if they translate into buyers, or, in the case of Medicaid, enrollees. And the White House hasn’t said how many of those there are.

Read more: Many Obamacare Shoppers Aren’t Actually Buying | TIME.com
Click to expand...

So maybe you should put aside the talking points, and start looking at what a disaster this actually is?
 
jmotivator said:
It is very likely that most of the denials of coverage in a given year are by Medicare who denies the lions share of healthcare claims every year. Medicare denies more coverage than all major insurers combined, and at a higher percentage rate. In fact, of all denials studied, Medicare accounted for a whopping 74% of all coverage denials.

... but don't touch Medicare!

Your liberal source relies on anecdotes and leaves it to you to fill in the blanks as if this is a rampant problem, and people who read Media Matters have a lot of blanks...

So no, your biased source is biased. They refused to tell you that the source of most coverage denials is Medicare, not private sector, and they fool you with the anecdotes that mask the real truth of it.
Click to expand...

Yes sirree bob, lets get the government more involved in health care. That way their death panels (IPAB and Sec of health and Human Services) can deny more health care than ever before. The good news and most important thing, everybody will have heath insurance and have to toe every line the government draws because of it. On the other hand, the government won't have to deny some claims as those people they have insured won't be able to find a doctor that takes what the government feels like paying them.

Two excellent posts by you today. Run with it. Facts makes liberals cringe or try and come up with big whoopers to distract from the truth.
 
Helix said:
no, the state level health care for the poor is medicaid. that would be eliminated, and everyone would be absorbed into Medicare. sure, people would fight it in court and lose just like they did with the PPACA. i'm not a supporter of the PPACA because it doesn't directly solve the cost and inefficiencies. indirectly it will, because it probably isn't going to work, it will piss people off, and then we'll replace it with single payer.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm confused because you did originally say everyone should have been just folded into Medicare and I was pretty sure that the States who opposed Obamacare partly did so because the federal government was passing a law that in effect increased the State's costs related to Medicare. It's also, from what I understood, why a large number of States refused to create exchanges under Obamacare because the exchanges and coverage for those below certain income threshholds were being covered under Medicare and since Medicare is a joint federal/states program, the state's costs would rise.
 
tererun said:
That may or may not be the case. Due to subsidies and restrictions on how much they have to have paid out for medical costs or else they are legally forced to give you a refund it may be less. Why don't you look for yourself instead of bitchin about something you have not even tried. God, why do I feel like a parent trying to get some overly picky kids to eat some food they have never tried before but I know they would probably like if they had it?
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong here as well...

"Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges. It is true that in some states, the experience could be the opposite. This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York. Many states, however, double or nearly triple premiums for young adults. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Vermont see some of the largest increases in premiums.[5]"

Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I guess I'm confused because you did originally say everyone should have been just folded into Medicare and I was pretty sure that the States who opposed Obamacare partly did so because the federal government was passing a law that in effect increased the State's costs related to Medicare. It's also, from what I understood, why a large number of States refused to create exchanges under Obamacare because the exchanges and coverage for those below certain income threshholds were being covered under Medicare and since Medicare is a joint federal/states program, the state's costs would rise.
Click to expand...

Replace Medicare with Medicaid, and I think you are correct.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That would be problematic, to say the least. I am not stating that there is no potential problem. My point is that we need to wait until there is sufficient data to draw hard conclusions.

Legitimate risks exist. However, the Florida Blue experience and that of other cases will all need to be looked at more closely before one can reach conclusions e.g., those concerning possible adverse selection, among other issues. The opportunity to enroll, cost of replacement plans, shift in enrollment patterns, and impact on currently covered and currently uninsured persons, are some examples of data that will need to be examined.

My early guess, based on CBO and other analyses, historic experience with sophisticated product/service introductions, etc., is that changes beyond a website fix will likely be needed. The magnitude of such changes (local? regional? national?) and nature of such changes are uncertain.
Click to expand...

Why put people through that? Studies are already being done on this...

Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?

We can't even get proper figures of people actually signing up for this out of the WH, why do you suppose that is?

It sure isn't because they have overwhelming demand for their plans....
 
Samhain said:
Replace Medicare with Medicaid, and I think you are correct.
Click to expand...

So Medicare, the program for seniors, is a jointly funded program and Medicaid is only funded by the federal government? Was the $500-$700 million taken out of Medicare to help fund the transition just monies from the federal side? If Medicaid was/is to cover all those who have no insurance and can't afford to pay for insurance, then the rationale for Obamacare seems to be lost and the only real goal was to get healthy and/or young people forced into the system.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So Medicare, the program for seniors, is a jointly funded program and Medicaid is only funded by the federal government? Was the $500-$700 million taken out of Medicare to help fund the transition just monies from the federal side? If Medicaid was/is to cover all those who have no insurance and can't afford to pay for insurance, then the rationale for Obamacare seems to be lost and the only real goal was to get healthy and/or young people forced into the system.
Click to expand...

No, Medicaid is the joint venture, which was expanded by the states with federal money, and the expanded medicaid accounts for more than 50% of the current exchange enrollments or those that can't afford insurance. We "care" for our seniors and "aid" the poor.

And yes, the goal of ACA was to get the young/healthy people into the system, but they shot themselves in the foot when they took 50% of that population and let them stay on their parents policy. Getting the principles onto the rolls is the only way you can eliminate pre-existing condition cost controls.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I guess I'm confused because you did originally say everyone should have been just folded into Medicare and I was pretty sure that the States who opposed Obamacare partly did so because the federal government was passing a law that in effect increased the State's costs related to Medicare. It's also, from what I understood, why a large number of States refused to create exchanges under Obamacare because the exchanges and coverage for those below certain income threshholds were being covered under Medicare and since Medicare is a joint federal/states program, the state's costs would rise.
Click to expand...

of course moving everyone to single payer will cost more initially, but there will be savings in other areas, as one entity covering all basic care has a lot of power to force down prices. for example, you guys pay a lot less for prescriptions than we do.

just moving everyone to single payer won't completely solve the problem. we're going to have to address lawsuits, too. we will also have to remove the artificial roadblocks and bottlenecks to the supply of physicians. the AMA has it set up so it's crushingly expensive to become a doctor so that existing doctors can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. again, this is not working for patients.

there will be a lot of benefits to switching, though. for example, right now, businesses are saddled with health care costs, which makes them less competitive on the global stage. no other first world country distributes health care through specific employment. as business costs drop, economic activity will increase. we could potentially pay for it in a lot of ways and split the cost. for example, instead of spending many thousands per year per employee, businesses could be levied a smaller tax so that they still come out much better, but pay a small chunk of what they were paying. also, we could look at a small national sales tax to cover it.

my proposal, though, is that we pay for most of it by abdicating our self assigned role as global cop. if the world wants an army, it should build and fund one. the US is too broke to do it, and we need to seriously re-prioritize.
 
Helix said:
of course moving everyone to single payer will cost more initially, but there will be savings in other areas, as one entity covering all basic care has a lot of power to force down prices. for example, you guys pay a lot less for prescriptions than we do.

just moving everyone to single payer won't completely solve the problem. we're going to have to address lawsuits, too. we will also have to remove the artificial roadblocks and bottlenecks to the supply of physicians. the AMA has it set up so it's crushingly expensive to become a doctor so that existing doctors can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. again, this is not working for patients.

there will be a lot of benefits to switching, though. for example, right now, businesses are saddled with health care costs, which makes them less competitive on the global stage. no other first world country distributes health care through specific employment. as business costs drop, economic activity will increase. we could potentially pay for it in a lot of ways and split the cost. for example, instead of spending many thousands per year per employee, businesses could be levied a smaller tax so that they still come out much better, but pay a small chunk of what they were paying. also, we could look at a small national sales tax to cover it.

my proposal, though, is that we pay for most of it by abdicating our self assigned role as global cop. if the world wants an army, it should build and fund one. the US is too broke to do it, and we need to seriously re-prioritize.
Click to expand...


Now, I don't know who this guy is, but watch this...




Here's the article from 2009....

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com
 
the real question is what kind of a teabagger pig would side with an insurance company over the lives and wellbeing of his fellow citizens? All motivated by nothing but racist hate for a black president.
 
Michael66 said:
the real question is what kind of a teabagger pig would side with an insurance company over the lives and wellbeing of his fellow citizens? All motivated by nothing but racist hate for a black president.
Click to expand...

Well, this post was time I'll never recover from having read, as it is nothing but hate directed towards one's fellow citizens...
 
Michael66 said:
One would hope you're right. It's only a matter of time before the US comes to the realization that it has to join the rest of the first world with proper insurance coverage for all it's people. A little suffering will likely bring it on sooner. the insurance company death panels will ensure that!
Click to expand...

Laughable.

No, the upper class will just form private medical groups (my doctor has already spoken to me about my family) that share costs across a small group of families and a few specialized doctors. The rest of America can go to the clinic. Good luck with all that.
 
Helix said:
of course moving everyone to single payer will cost more initially, but there will be savings in other areas, as one entity covering all basic care has a lot of power to force down prices. for example, you guys pay a lot less for prescriptions than we do.
Click to expand...

Only in some cases, but not in all cases. Generics are far cheaper in the US.

I think people downplay the effect of having the US economy as the early adopters for medical technology, but if we went UHC we would cease to play that role.
 
Wisconson weighing in....

"Health-care premiums in Wisconsin will almost double under Obamacare, compared with their current rates, according to a report from the MacIver Institute.

The state’s free-market think tank figured the average premiums of the insurance plans the Obamacare exchange offers for several categories of Wisconsinites: 27-year-olds, 50-year-olds, and a family of four from data found on a federal database. The institute then compared those rates with the average premiums on the private market, using figures from eHealthInsurance.com.

MacIver found that rates will jump significantly, especially for the young: A 27-year-old will see premiums more than double in one county in 2014, and see his rates go up by 93.6 percent in Madison, 91.2 percent in Milwaukee, and 72.6 percent in Eau Claire.

Fifty-year-olds will be paying more overall, too, but their premiums won’t go up quite as much, jumping by about half. Families will see their premiums rise at similar rates to young people: A family of four will see a spike of 97.2 percent in Brown County, and increases of just below 90 percent in Milwaukee and Dane counties."

Think Tank: Health-Insurance Premiums Will Almost Double in Wisconsin | National Review Online

Wow, this is going to be epic!
 
Erod said:
I'm convinced it's by design that this entire cluster**** happened. Ultimately, give the middle class no choice but to adopt a single payer government plan and put the insurance industry out of business.

But those folks in Congress will be exempt and get an aristocratic plan of their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like Cruz, who gets his health insurance from Goldman Sachs.

Ted Cruz gets his health care plan from Goldman Sachs | MSNBC

Since single payer has some of the best health outcomes in the world, certainly better than our for-profit system, I'll take single payer any day -- especially to stop paying my provider inflated rates that rise about 15% a year for inferior and unintelligible coverage.
 
From the article: The insurance company told Channel 4 the coverage is being cut because of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 "essential" benefits like maternity care, mental health treatment and prescription drugs."
CanadaJohn said:
It would be interesting to know how many of these "cheap" policies that no longer meet Obamacare standards are lacking because they don't cover things such as contraceptives, morning after pills, and abortions, etc. Obama and the administration "claimed" that insurers would be providing these "free of charge" as a "claim" that these requirements do not/did not impact religious institutions that provided their employees healthcare insurance coverage. Any person with even half a brain, liberals excepted, would understand that no business provides any service free of charge, particularly one that is ongoing and virtually constant for the duration of most female's lives. As a result, it wouldn't surprise me if these insurers are telling their clients in a round about way that they cannot provide them with increased coverage at the rates they were paying previously, and therefore they are cancelling their coverage.
Click to expand...
 
A lot of these policies were cheap, but they didn't have full coverage, and that's one of the things decided in the law, is that policies had to meet minimum, essential benefits,” said McClanahan.
 
head of joaquin said:
Yeah, like Cruz, who gets his health insurance from Goldman Sachs.

Ted Cruz gets his health care plan from Goldman Sachs | MSNBC

Since single payer has some of the best health outcomes in the world, certainly better than our for-profit system, I'll take single payer any day -- especially to stop paying my provider inflated rates that rise about 15% a year for inferior and unintelligible coverage.
Click to expand...

Wow, you progressives are really devious in your language...Ted Cruz is covered under his wifes plan...So?

Single payer coverage overall is worse than a free market anyday. The fact that your lies are designed to further propaganda is just more proof that progressivism needs to crawl back under that rock.
 
mak2 said:
A lot of these policies were cheap, but they didn't have full coverage, and that's one of the things decided in the law, is that policies had to meet minimum, essential benefits,” said McClanahan.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what the article said...So just to be clear, you are just fine with Government telling you what coverage you need to be mandated to have, and what you must carry.
 
I think all Americans should have adequate healthcare. I think we should have a UHC system and hope ACA is a step along the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom