• 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

Moving the goal post to get away from your posts may work on your side of asile but not here.:lol:

That doesn't answer that either, though together we moved on to another more nuanced point.
 
If a medicaid recipient begins to earn more, above a predefined standard, then they can afford to pay for their ins. That's only proper. Of course the private ins. company death panels used to have the right to refuse to cover them, which was immoral, and that has been corrected by Obamacare.

What do you think should have happened when people worked and earned more money and they exceeded the income level that was set to qualify for medicaid???


Well if they were one dollar under the upper limit and was on Medicaid then made two dollars more and now, "If a medicaid recipient begins to earn more, above a predefined standard, then they can afford to pay for their ins. That's only proper.", why didn't they buy their own insurance to begin with? The government death panels now refuse to insure them. Over two dollars. Completely heartless by your standards.

But the current government death panels have nothing on the government death panels that will be employed by the government when the liars that forced Obamadon'tcare on us switch us over to single payer.
 
Here is a true story.

Back in 1984 my father had a brain tumor at age 28. He had no insurance. He had brain surgery to remove the tumor. The total cost out of his pocket was $3,000. He kept his house and his credit remained immaculate. The insurance company didn't pay for his medical expenses. My dad didn't pay for his medical expenses. Society didn't throw my dad out in the cold to die. This happened 26 years before the Affordable Health Care Act was signed into law.

I'm sorry. I don't see what the problem is. My dad is still alive. He's broke too but it's not because of his medical bills. He paid all of those. He paid all $3,000 of his medical bills. I don't know what brain surgery did cost in 1984 but I bet it cost more than $3,000.

Are you accusing insurance companies of being heartless? or Are you accusing society of being heartless? An insurance company is a business. Society is comprised of people that care about each other.

When you continue to talk about the immorality of the insurance company I get really confused. Morals are irrelevant when you are focusing on surviving. A company has to make a profit in order to survive. Otherwise they will shut down their insurance company and nobody will get coverage. Is that less moral to deny coverage to every single human being by shutting your doors? or Is it more moral because nobody would have evidence of your heartless death panels?

I hate it that you don't understand the purpose of an insurance company. It has nothing to do with saving lives. The hospital does that part. Insurance is a financial product. This is my last attempt to explain to you what the purpose of an insurance company is. If you refuse to understand or cannot understand I am not the proper person to teach you to think.

This is my last post on this issue. You win.

vasuderatorrent

I am sorry that you don't understand that an insurance company is one component that exists in SOME healthcare systems, and it is unnecessary and does not exist in all healthcare systems.

I understand very well how insurance works.

I understand that the goal of the healthcare system may or may not be consistent with the inclusion of a health insurance function.

I understand that there are other ways to run a health insurance company beside the way they have been run the last 30 years in the US. This is NOT a binary problem / solution set, there are many options.

I understand that to have a good overall healthcare system that meets the needs of the people you have to start with the goals of the healthcare system, not start with the requirement that the health insurance companies are guaranteed a certain profit margin. If we eliminated the health insurance companies and the high profit margin they make via essentially a guarantee since they can kick off customers who cost them a lot, we would have more money in the system to spend on actual health care for the people; the health insurance companies are just a pass through collecting money and paying the hospitals and providers.

I understand that what happened to your Dad 30 years ago has nothing to do with the way the world operates today.
 
Well if they were one dollar under the upper limit and was on Medicaid then made two dollars more and now, "If a medicaid recipient begins to earn more, above a predefined standard, then they can afford to pay for their ins. That's only proper.", why didn't they buy their own insurance to begin with? The government death panels now refuse to insure them. Over two dollars. Completely heartless by your standards.

But the current government death panels have nothing on the government death panels that will be employed by the government when the liars that forced Obamadon'tcare on us switch us over to single payer.

There has to be a standard, otherwise how would you determine who gets free care and who does not? Describe the system that you advocate, I may like it.

Do you agree that the health insurance companies have had death panels for years that deny people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, or rescind policies of people that cost them too much, and that not being able to get a health insurance policy when you have a very serious illness leads to pre-mature death?
 
No. But we can look at per capita and make some reasonable assumptions. It's logical if next to all pay less than us, we too would likely pay less. And we can design it to do so as well, once we quit with the demonizing and mindless ideas that accompany these debates.

Proving once again that you are really not open to any ideas other than the one your dear leader, and his group of congressional thugs already shoved down our throats in the middle of the night.
 
Proving once again that you are really not open to any ideas other than the one your dear leader, and his group of congressional thugs already shoved down our throats in the middle of the night.

I'm always dumbfounded when you go off like this. One,I that's nothing to do with what I said. Two, it's hyperbolic beyond belief. And third, you didn't present any other idea.

Damn son!
 
There has to be a standard, otherwise how would you determine who gets free care and who does not? Describe the system that you advocate, I may like it.

Do you agree that the health insurance companies have had death panels for years that deny people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, or rescind policies of people that cost them too much, and that not being able to get a health insurance policy when you have a very serious illness leads to pre-mature death?

Oh stop....Good grief, I mean really, it sounds just like listening to the democrat congress critter on the sunday show I listened to this morning.

Look, There are individual problems with the system we had, like Pre existing condition cancellations, does that mean that we needed to have a 2700 page bill, now law that no one can read through without a law degree, not to mention 80,000 new regulations? There is **** hidden in this law that is going to absolutely kill health care in this country, and severely attack capitalism at its core.

Tell me why the 70 year old couple needs maternity care? You can't. This is absurd.
 
I'm always dumbfounded when you go off like this. One,I that's nothing to do with what I said. Two, it's hyperbolic beyond belief. And third, you didn't present any other idea.

Damn son!

It's not up to me to dig you out of your hole...What I responded to was directly aimed at the quote I provided by you. I can't help it if you can't follow logic.
 
It's not up to me to dig you out of your hole...What I responded to was directly aimed at the quote I provided by you. I can't help it if you can't follow logic.

And your not really answering this one either. J, there was no logic in your response. That's the point, and I laid out exactly why. If we're being honest about holes, you may want to re-read.
 
And your not really answering this one either. J, there was no logic in your response. That's the point, and I laid out exactly why. If we're being honest about holes, you may want to re-read.

What is it about liberalism that makes people that are generally intelligent, ignore simple logic?
 
What is it about liberalism that makes people that are generally intelligent, ignore simple logic?

No, no one has ignore anything. You went off, in the ways I enumerated, without responding to what was said. You're still doing it. Address the point made or admit you only know the propaganda talking points and can't actually address points.
 
No, no one has ignore anything. You went off, in the ways I enumerated, without responding to what was said. You're still doing it. Address the point made or admit you only know the propaganda talking points and can't actually address points.

I am not going to address silliness.
 
There has to be a standard, otherwise how would you determine who gets free care and who does not? Describe the system that you advocate, I may like it.

Do you agree that the health insurance companies have had death panels for years that deny people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, or rescind policies of people that cost them too much, and that not being able to get a health insurance policy when you have a very serious illness leads to pre-mature death?

My standard is simple, straight and to the point. Get rid of mandated coverage by government. Unless physically or mentally disabled, if you want health insurance, figure out a way to get it (until now, that never was hard to do). Those people with legit problems should be helped by the govenrnment if needed. That pre-existing stuff you harp on was already under control. state by state. Meet the wait times, get insurance. And lets not pretend Obamadon'tcare doesn't have wait times, if you do not enroll in an open enrollment period, not much difference than before.

The health insurance industry did not have death panels unlike Obamadon'tcare. A person got what they paid for. And once again, Obamadon'tcare does not "guarantee" coverage. Miss the window and you are stuck with no health insurance.
 
And this is just one state....

[/SIZE]

This is a disaster that was predicted, and the cancellations are dwarfing the sign ups....Thanks progressives, you are breaking the system. :doh:doh



I love the idiots language... "We're just 'shifting jobs'"....

That's like saying: You're not being "fired" - you're being "laid off."

Do the progressives really believe that their MSM brainwashing made all of us that stupid so soon to buy such a load of **** or are these retards just dipping their toes in the water? considering half the **** that comes out of the progressive MSM or Obama and Carney I'll choose the latter ...
 
My standard is simple, straight and to the point. Get rid of mandated coverage by government.
That's just simple minded. If industry ran so well, there would be no need for government regulation. We found out in the 19th century about predatory corporations and the anti-trust laws were written to prevent the richest from unfairly monopolizing markets with below market pricing to force their competitors out of business, followed by raising prices once they were out of the way and raping the public. The government had to step in, and we all enjoy the benefit of fair markets where new entrants can form and provide competition. Government regulation is vital in these cases. If you can show how getting rid of mandated coverage by government gives us a better healthcare system, and you have to buy off that lack of health insurance causes thousands per year to die prematurely, I'll believe you. Show it. The goal is to improve the overall healthcare system.

ItAin'tFree said:
Unless physically or mentally disabled, if you want health insurance, figure out a way to get it (until now, that never was hard to do). Those people with legit problems should be helped by the govenrnment if needed.
We could say the same thing about public education in this country, but the debate was held in the 19th century and we decided it fell under the authority of the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation, you know, things that are good for everyone. We are far better with a public education system where everyone can go. If you have a lot of money and you want to send your kid to a private school, go ahead. But everyone should have access to a minimum standard of education. It is no different with healthcare. Everyone should have access to a minimum standard of care (NOT UNLIMITED HEALTHCARE), and if you have a lot of money and you want to buy from a higher priced private provider, I don't see a problem with that.

ItAin'tFree said:
That pre-existing stuff you harp on was already under control. state by state. Meet the wait times, get insurance. And lets not pretend Obamadon'tcare doesn't have wait times, if you do not enroll in an open enrollment period, not much difference than before.

No, the states didn't have it under control. I am only familiar with TX, but here you submit application to 3 companies and after you've gotten 3 letters of rejection, you send them to the state ins. commissioner. They send you a letter and tell you what ins. company to call and they WILL insure you, but you are NOT TOLD THE PRICE. The problem is that the price is exorbitant, and most people can't afford it. So, no, the states didn't have it handled.

Wait times are standard on all insurance, to insure that you don't wait until an event is certain to occur and then run and get insurance to cover it at the last minute. All homeowners ins. has a 30 day waiting period, so you can't sign up for it when a hurricane is coming and it looks like you will be wiped out. You can't pay a $100 premium one month and get them to replace your $100,000 house. So, waiting periods are there to insure you are signed up and paying premiums all the time, as its the only way to insure people aren't gaming the insurance business model.

It is the same under Obamacare, that is why it has the individual mandate. You never know when you will be in a serious car accident, or get a cancer diagnosis, and then it is too late to enter the system, start paying premiums and get the ins. co. to pay your bills.

Healthcare means life and death in many instances, which makes it a moral issue where there is no moral issue with property insurance. Because it is a moral issue, the government passed the emergency treatment in 1986, which Reagan signed into law. Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The health insurance industry did not have death panels unlike Obamadon'tcare. A person got what they paid for. And once again, Obamadon'tcare does not "guarantee" coverage. Miss the window and you are stuck with no health insurance.

Of course the health ins. companies have their death panels, they are the people who turn down folks for ins. coverage who have worked for years in industry and had group coverage, they are still battling cancer, they get laid off, and their next job doesn't offer health ins., and they get turned down when they apply for a private policy. They can't afford COBRA, and they can't afford the high risk pool rates where the ins. company can charge whatever they want.

I will show that the health ins. death panels did JUST THAT, drop their insured when they got serious illnesses and cost them too much. Watch.

June 24, 2009

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick — all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.

I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand — or even to obtain — information we need. As you hold hearings and discuss legislative proposals over the coming weeks, I encourage you to look very closely at the role for-profit insurance companies play in making our health care system both the most expensive and one of the most dysfunctional in the world. I hope you get a real sense of what life would be like for most of us if the kind of so-called reform the insurers are lobbying for is enacted.

<snip>

A few months after I joined the health insurer CIGNA Corp. in 1993, just as the last national health care reform debate was underway, the president of CIGNA's health care division was one of three industry executives who came here to assure members of Congress that they would help lawmakers pass meaningful reform.

Those goals included covering all Americans; eliminating underwriting practices like pre-existing condition exclusions and cherry-picking; the use of community rating; and the creation of a standard benefit plan. Had the industry followed through on its commitment to those goals, I wouldn't be here today.

<snip>

The average family doesn't understand how Wall Street's dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they'll be charged for it. But, in fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock.

<snip>

To help meet Wall Street's relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment. Asked directly about this practice just last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers refused to end the practice of cancelling policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health care spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee's investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year period, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims.

They also dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected. All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year's premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether — leaving workers uninsured. The practice is known in the industry as "purging." The purging of less profitable accounts through intentionally unrealistic rate increases helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees has fallen from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993, according to the National Small Business Association. Once an insurer purges a business, there are often no other viable choices in the health insurance market because of rampant industry consolidation.

An account purge so eye-popping that it caught the attention of reporters occurred in October 2006 when CIGNA notified the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust that many of the Trust's members in California and New Jersey would have to pay more than some of them earned in a year if they wanted to continue their coverage. The rate increase CIGNA planned to implement, according to USA Today, would have meant that some family-plan premiums would exceed $44,000 a year. CIGNA gave the enrollees less than three months to pay the new premiums or go elsewhere.

Purging through pricing games is not limited to letting go of an isolated number of unprofitable accounts. It is endemic in the industry. For instance, between 1996 and 1999, Aetna initiated a series of company acquisitions and became the nation's largest health insurer with 21 million members. The company spent more than $20 million that it received in fees and premiums from customers to revamp its computer systems, enabling the company to "identify and dump unprofitable corporate accounts," as The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004. Armed with a stockpile of new information on policyholders, new management and a shift in strategy, in 2000, Aetna sharply raised premiums on less profitable accounts. Within a few years, Aetna lost 8 million covered lives due to strategic and other factors.

While strategically initiating these cost hikes, insurers have professed to be the victims of rising health costs while taking no responsibility for their share of America's health care affordability crisis. Yet, all the while, health-plan operating margins have increased as sick people are forced to scramble for insurance.

Unless required by state law, insurers often refuse to tell customers how much of their premiums are actually being paid out in claims. A Houston employer could not get that information until the Texas legislature passed a law a few years ago requiring insurers to disclose it. That Houston employer discovered that its insurer was demanding a 22 percent rate increase in 2006 even though it had paid out only 9 percent of the employer's premium dollars for care the year before.
Bill Moyers Journal . Testimony of Wendell Potter | PBS
 
Last edited:
Of course the health ins. companies have their death panels, they are the people who turn down folks for ins. coverage who have worked for years in industry and had group coverage, they are still battling cancer, they get laid off, and their next job doesn't offer health ins., and they get turned down when they apply for a private policy. They can't afford COBRA, and they can't afford the high risk pool rates where the ins. company can charge whatever they want.

I will show that the health ins. death panels did JUST THAT, drop their insured when they got serious illnesses and cost them too much. Watch.


Bill Moyers Journal . Testimony of Wendell Potter | PBS


It is a very scary thing to be diagnosed with something like isolated ventricular non-compaction.
 
Oh stop....Good grief, I mean really, it sounds just like listening to the democrat congress critter on the sunday show I listened to this morning.

Look, There are individual problems with the system we had, like Pre existing condition cancellations, does that mean that we needed to have a 2700 page bill, now law that no one can read through without a law degree, not to mention 80,000 new regulations? There is **** hidden in this law that is going to absolutely kill health care in this country, and severely attack capitalism at its core.

Tell me why the 70 year old couple needs maternity care? You can't. This is absurd.

You're right, there are problems with the existing system and they needed to be fixed. Republicans controlled the congress from 1994 until 2006 and what did they do? NOTHING. They had the whole ball of wax from 2001 to 2006 and what did they do to improve healthcare, only give us Medicare part D, with NO TAX TO PAY FOR IT AT ALL, the GOVT. CANNOT NEGOTIATE FOR DISCOUNTS ON DRUGS in Medicare, although the VA gets a 50% discount, and it now puts $70 billion a year right on the deficit. Pathetic job by the republicans. Do I trust the repubs to fix healthcare, absolutely NOT.

Does a 70 year old couple need maternity benefit, no, but they are on Medicare anyhow. But a 60 year old couple will pay more than the 20 year old couple, and it has to do with the probability of cancer or heart disease anyhow, not maternity.
 
You're right, there are problems with the existing system and they needed to be fixed. Republicans controlled the congress from 1994 until 2006 and what did they do? NOTHING. They had the whole ball of wax from 2001 to 2006 and what did they do to improve healthcare, only give us Medicare part D, with NO TAX TO PAY FOR IT AT ALL, the GOVT. CANNOT NEGOTIATE FOR DISCOUNTS ON DRUGS in Medicare, although the VA gets a 50% discount, and it now puts $70 billion a year right on the deficit. Pathetic job by the republicans. Do I trust the repubs to fix healthcare, absolutely NOT.

Does a 70 year old couple need maternity benefit, no, but they are on Medicare anyhow. But a 60 year old couple will pay more than the 20 year old couple, and it has to do with the probability of cancer or heart disease anyhow, not maternity.

Medicare part D was a bi partisan, regular order passage. Nothing like the ACA. Was if perfect? No. Does it show that federal government shouldn't be involved in controlling the Health Insurance industry to that degree? Yes.

As for Repubs not doing anything to address Health care in general? The agenda is not for demo's to decide for repubs. Just as you don't want us setting your agenda, right?

And the example I gave of 70 Year olds and maternity care, may have been off, I am not sure of the age, but it was certainly old enough to still have private insurance, and not need things like that which drive costs of the plans up.

It amazes me that such diametrically opposed statements to fact are being argued by demo's these days with straight faces. Such as...."We will insure 30 million more people, and costs will go down." or, "We need to pass the bill before we can see what is in the bill", or, my personal favorite these days when talking about why we, as conservatives, or repubs should stop fighting over this, "Just give it a chance...." etc.

At every step, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the others are just not truthful about this entire thing. Masking their intentions in rhetoric, blame, and obfuscation are not signs of someone we can trust to do the right thing on our behalf.
 
That's just simple minded. If industry ran so well, there would be no need for government regulation. We found out in the 19th century about predatory corporations and the anti-trust laws were written to prevent the richest from unfairly monopolizing markets with below market pricing to force their competitors out of business, followed by raising prices once they were out of the way and raping the public. The government had to step in, and we all enjoy the benefit of fair markets where new entrants can form and provide competition. Government regulation is vital in these cases. If you can show how getting rid of mandated coverage by government gives us a better healthcare system, and you have to buy off that lack of health insurance causes thousands per year to die prematurely, I'll believe you. Show it. The goal is to improve the overall healthcare system.
LOL. The financial industry is probably the most regulated industry there is and we should all know by now how well all those government regulations worked out. But some people insist on keeping their head stuck in the sand then demand more sand. The results of mandated government coverage should be obvious to everyone, it mandates price increases that have to be passed on to the consumer. That of course mandates excluding some percentage of the 15% (before Obamadon'tcare) of the people in America that do not have health insurance from getting health insurance because of higher prices. Of course now, present day, all the government mandates required by Obamadon'tcare has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people losing their health insurance. Right now, the simplest and best way to improve healthcare in America is drop everything about Obamadon'tcare and start over with something that might actually improve healthcare. One more thing. A study done in Oregon proved there was no real advantage to a person having heath insurance against a person that did not as far as health improvements.


We could say the same thing about public education in this country, but the debate was held in the 19th century and we decided it fell under the authority of the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation, you know, things that are good for everyone. We are far better with a public education system where everyone can go. If you have a lot of money and you want to send your kid to a private school, go ahead. But everyone should have access to a minimum standard of education. It is no different with healthcare. Everyone should have access to a minimum standard of care (NOT UNLIMITED HEALTHCARE), and if you have a lot of money and you want to buy from a higher priced private provider, I don't see a problem with that.
Everyone all ready had access to health care before Obamadon'tcare. But if you want to discuss education I suggest starting a new thread. Your next para discusses "minimum standard of care".


No, the states didn't have it under control. I am only familiar with TX, but here you submit application to 3 companies and after you've gotten 3 letters of rejection, you send them to the state ins. commissioner. They send you a letter and tell you what ins. company to call and they WILL insure you, but you are NOT TOLD THE PRICE. The problem is that the price is exorbitant, and most people can't afford it. So, no, the states didn't have it handled.

Wait times are standard on all insurance, to insure that you don't wait until an event is certain to occur and then run and get insurance to cover it at the last minute. All homeowners ins. has a 30 day waiting period, so you can't sign up for it when a hurricane is coming and it looks like you will be wiped out. You can't pay a $100 premium one month and get them to replace your $100,000 house. So, waiting periods are there to insure you are signed up and paying premiums all the time, as its the only way to insure people aren't gaming the insurance business model.

It is the same under Obamacare, that is why it has the individual mandate. You never know when you will be in a serious car accident, or get a cancer diagnosis, and then it is too late to enter the system, start paying premiums and get the ins. co. to pay your bills.

Healthcare means life and death in many instances, which makes it a moral issue where there is no moral issue with property insurance. Because it is a moral issue, the government passed the emergency treatment in 1986, which Reagan signed into law. Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.


Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL. The wait time "is the same under Obamacare" but it's an improvement over the old way? LOL. And "Healthcare means life and death in many instances, which makes it a moral issue" then you show where the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough. LOL. Then this gem. " you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.", wake up. Obamadon'tcare sloughs off the burden to taxpayers at least to the tune of 2 trillion dollars over ten years.
 
Of course the health ins. companies have their death panels, they are the people who turn down folks for ins. coverage who have worked for years in industry and had group coverage, they are still battling cancer, they get laid off, and their next job doesn't offer health ins., and they get turned down when they apply for a private policy. They can't afford COBRA, and they can't afford the high risk pool rates where the ins. company can charge whatever they want.

I will show that the health ins. death panels did JUST THAT, drop their insured when they got serious illnesses and cost them too much. Watch.


Bill Moyers Journal . Testimony of Wendell Potter | PBS

Wendell Potter is bought and paid for by George Soros. Soros never met anybody he didn't want to control because of his -ist ideology, truth be damned is what he lives by.
 
Medicare part D was a bi partisan, regular order passage. Nothing like the ACA. Was if perfect? No. Does it show that federal government shouldn't be involved in controlling the Health Insurance industry to that degree? Yes.

Repub house, repub senate, repub white house!

Criticisms

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.[27]

Although generic versions of [frequently prescribed to the elderly] drugs are now available, plans offered by three of the five [exemplar Medicare Part D] insurers currently exclude some or all of these drugs from their formularies.…Further, prices for the generic versions are not substantially lower than their brand-name equivalents. The lowest price for simvastatin (generic Zocor) 20 mg is 706 percent more expensive than the VA price for brand-name Zocor. The lowest price for sertraline HCl (generic Zoloft) is 47 percent more expensive than the VA price for brand-name Zoloft.
—Families USA, No Bargain: Medicare Drug Plans Deliver High Prices[27]

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".[28]

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[29][30] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.
Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just corruption on the part of repubs who steered this through. The wrote the law to help big pharma rape the taxpayers. Actually, there is NO TAX TO PAY FOR THIS AT ALL, so the repubs just ran up the deficit, now they complain that the dems are running up the deficit, but it is mostly repub screw ups from the Bush admin, and the slow recovery keeping income tax receipts low.

At least an attempt was made by the dems to pay for Obamacare, savings in Medicare, big pharma agreed to a 10% discount on the drugs provided by Medicare part D, some new taxes in the healthcare area, and the penalty on those who go uninsured. We'll see how it turns out, but I don't see how it can be as bad to the deficit as Medicare part D was, without even a shred of an attempt to pay for it.
 
LOL. The wait time "is the same under Obamacare" but it's an improvement over the old way? LOL.
You are taking two statements I made out of context and joining them together, which demonstrates confused and invalid logic on your part. Fail.

ItAin'tFree said:
And "Healthcare means life and death in many instances, which makes it a moral issue" then you show where the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough.
Again, nothing but confused jumbled invalid logic. What I showed is federal law required EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. I did NOT SAY what you just said "the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough.", you just made that up. You are really grasping for straws by attempting to alter what I said.

ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. Then this gem. " you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.", wake up. Obamadon'tcare sloughs off the burden to taxpayers at least to the tune of 2 trillion dollars over ten years.
There's a difference that you don't seem to get. Under the old system, many of the 50 million uninsured HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY for insurance and they don't, so if something real serious happens to them, and they can't cover the expense themselves, since they chose not to take responsibility for themselves, they slough it off on the rest of us (but they had the ability to pay for the insurance). In the new system, you are correct, some people will get nearly free health insurance, but the difference is that they DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR IT otherwise. Then we face the moral issue, if someone can't pay for health ins. nor the care necessary to save their life, will we, in the richest nation on earth, just allow them to die. As a society, we are voting NO, we won't let them die. Now, I believe there are limits, I don't think we can ask the society to pay unlimited bills on a limited budget, and that is where we have to make some practical choices on what type of care to pay for that everyone will have access to.
 
Wendell Potter is bought and paid for by George Soros. Soros never met anybody he didn't want to control because of his -ist ideology, truth be damned is what he lives by.

you have proof of this I am sure, so demonstrate this, like I have supported my points with articles.
 
Back
Top Bottom