• 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!

AARP loses members over health care stance

These are all branches of the same company genius, Anthem is Wellpoint and so are the others listed.
All of them?
Show this to be true

It doesn't, it proves my point. Insurance companies are fleecing Americans to make money, and are determining what procedures patients get and doctors perform in order to increase those profits. It should not be a business.
Then you and your position are SOL, as the healh care system in the US IS a business, something that will never change.
 
All of them?
Show this to be true


Then you and your position are SOL, as the healh care system in the US IS a business, something that will never change.

The sad part is that you are accepting of this. Pray that you never lose your insurance, for surely you will eat your words.
 
The sad part is that you are accepting of this. Pray that you never lose your insurance, for surely you will eat your words.
None of this negates anything that I said.
I'll accept your concession of the points.
 
All of them?
Show this to be true

My apologies, there are three companies represented there, and they are grouped. Aetna is the first group. When you get to Anthem, you are speaking of Wellpoint. Then you reach Humana and finish out.
 
None of this negates anything that I said.
I'll accept your concession of the points.

Of course it will change, reform will fix the system. And there is no need to negate what you say, I agree that insurance is a selfserving business. Oh, I did negate your insurance monopoly claim, but I will not do your research for you. Just search lawsuits over insurance coersion and you will see that all markets are dominated by two companies at most.
 
Last edited:
Of course it will change, reform will fix the system.
According to you, health care should not be a for-profit business.
So, the only wau to 'fix' the system, according to you, is to change it to a not-for-profir busuness.
That will never happen.

And there is no need to negate what you say, I agree that insurance is a selfserving business.
There's nothing wrong with profit.

Oh, I did negate your insurance monopoly claim...
No, you did not.
I have you a list of insurance companies. For you to be right, YOU have to show how they are ALL subsidiaries of the two companies you listed.

So, again, I accept you concession. Have a great day!:2wave:
 
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com


One of the largest voting blocs in the nation is doing a bit of early voting with their feet on GovernmentCare. They don't want it.

This country is making one message loud and clear--these health care "reform" efforts are not what the people want.

So why is the majority party ignoring the people who elected them?

60,000 out of 40,000,000? You're joking right? What is that? Like.......0.15% of their entire group? I lose more body mass in a day. Just saying. They probably have more members dying on a daily basis then they do leaving their group.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with profit.


No, you did not.
I have you a list of insurance companies. For you to be right, YOU have to show how they are ALL subsidiaries of the two companies you listed.

So, again, I accept you concession. Have a great day!:2wave:

I will not do your research for you, I already know I am right. And take it for what you will, if that helps you feel good about yourself.
 
I will not do your research for you, I already know I am right.
-I- didn't make a claim, so -I- dont have to do any research.

So far, all you have done is said that you are right.
That doesn't mean squat.

Support your position or have the honesty to admit that you cannot.
 
-I- didn't make a claim, so -I- dont have to do any research.

So far, all you have done is said that you are right.
That doesn't mean squat.

Support your position or have the honesty to admit that you cannot.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...over-health-care-stance-6.html#post1058202122

Forbes lists the THREE insurance companies in America. To show you that all the rest are under the umbrella I would have to post everyone listed website where they claim their affiliations, I am by far too lazy to do all of that.;)
 
You better thank me, otherwise you would see how wrong you really are.;)
Somehow, I doubt it.
In fact, that you refuse to support your posiiton is FAR more likely an indication that you know how wrong YOU are.
 
People on medicare can join a private medicare HMO. The HMO makes health care decisions, not the government.

Our city has "People's Health" which is owned by a group of local doctors. Just about everybody accepts it. It offers dental and eyeglasses whereas medicare does not. But it costs nothing extra per month.

And then they get discounts and free gym memberships and free events.

If somebody is not happy with it they can just go to a different HMO. But all the old ladies in the hood like it.
 
Somehow, I doubt it.
In fact, that you refuse to support your posiiton is FAR more likely an indication that you know how wrong YOU are.

Sure, like I am going to go through all of those websites to prove to you I am right. :doh

I will not hinder you to take a look though and see for yourself. If I were wrong, I would not want you to, but I really do want you to take a glimpse and see for yourself.
 
Sure, like I am going to go through all of those websites to prove to you I am right.
Its YOUR claim. If you don't want to support it, that's fine with me.
Just dont expect it to carry any weight.
 
Medicare Administrative costs are very low compared to their counterparts in the private sector. Fraud is a bigger issue with Medicare than Administrative Costs. I remember reading in the Business Journal a few years back where the local head of Blue Cross Blue Shield was holding up Medicare's Administrative costs as a goal for them to reach.
Actually, Medicare requires three times the paperwork of private coverage insurance, and everything signed goes to different administrators and departments for processing, sorry, but you lose on that, it's not that private insurance is exactly efficient from an administration standpoint either, but that comes from government compliance rather than strictly internals.

Only a minority of seniors earn enough to actually pay any significant taxes on their Social Security benefits.
You're not getting this are you? They did what they were required to do for the programs, they followed the law, every other argument is irrelevent, and benefits are taxed, whether they have enough in benefits or not.

Do the math. You have a median household income in the United States of 48k a year. Do away with Social Security and Medicare, and lets say that typical household saves 10% of their income for their retirement at an average annual return of 8% over the course of their working years (say for 40 years). Saving an average of 10% of your income for retirement considering all the other expenses a typical household will encounter over the course of their working lives is pretty optimistic, but just the same lets say they can do that. Considering you would no longer be paying fica taxes, you ought to be able to put aside 10% of your income for retirement.
Good, you made a point that I was holding back, in a roundabout sort of way, we are already overtaxed and the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is diminished because of government overregulation and this makes someone's 48k a year "just enough" to live in most areas, and insufficient in others, so the idea from the party causing this problem is another entitlement that will require more money than currently used, thus will need to be funded by more tax, therefore people will then have less than 10% to save for retirement by your same math, since salaries don't automatically adjust, end even then they would lose MORE money in income tax.

If they retire at 65, then by the time they reach retirement age they are going to have around 1.2 million dollars in their retirement savings. That's a lot of money, but inflation will be working against you for 40 years, so buying power will be less.
There are ways other than lump sum payouts to keep accumulating retirement money.
When you take into account average inflation, you will be looking at around 750k of purchasing power. Still a pretty good chunk of money the problem is you got to stretch that out for you and your wife until you die, preferably at least in your early 80s.
If the representatives in washington would do something about their problematic regulations and entitlement programs then that 1.2m could have the effect of more buying power, but that would be too hard for most people politically.
 
I am not a hypocrit. I attended the on-line Obama townhall. He said nothing which made sense. Posters to the live blog were populated with ACORN and SEIU who were basically insulting. I researched the AARP website and discovered that they have associated themselves with SEIU through Divided We Fail. SEIU is of course a cell of a global socialist organization bent on socialist domination of the planet. Check out SEIU site if you don't believe me.

The health care plan now proposes to save 1/2 a TRILLION $ by cuts and saving in Medicare. Now anyone with any sense knows that one can only do that through cuts in benefits. The fraud and abuse numbers are nowhere near that and efficiencies never yield huge numbers.

I watched a local AARP townhall later on YouTube and it was chaired by a younger woman (not a senior). When she was asked the first question, something like, "how can AARP support a bill that proposes reducing funding for seniors healthcare by 1/2 TRILLION $". She replied that AARP didn't support any bill and that she was there to pass on information and if she got any more interruptions she would cancel the meeting. The crowd of seniors roared and she left. They stayed and had a pretty good meeting which concluded that they should cancel their memberships. People should respect their elders.

The day the whitehouse was looking for "fishy" emails, I received one from the president of AARP looking to dispel all the misinformation with a section they wanted me to pass on to all my friends and family. I replied with a somewhat scathing diatribe and requested my membership be cancelled for their lack of concern, but mostly their association with SEIU and therefore ACORN. I have sent three following requests for the remainer of my dues back to no avail. They've lost a lot more than they are reporting!!

Healthcare needs tweaking not wholesale replacement. Obama has said he wants a single payer system and that his proposal will result in a one payer system after a number of years. That means shutting down the medical insurance system entirely. Seniors are already satisfied with Medicare that's why they don't want it scrapped. This bill needs to be scrapped. They are lying and cannot be trusted.

Not a hypocrit...I'm against all socialist organizations bent on global domination.
 
Actually, Medicare requires three times the paperwork of private coverage insurance, and everything signed goes to different administrators and departments for processing, sorry, but you lose on that, it's not that private insurance is exactly efficient from an administration standpoint either, but that comes from government compliance rather than strictly internals.

The fact is, Medicare has a 3% Administrative overhead compared to around 15% in the private sector. Part of that is due to the shear size of Medicare, part due to it not having to worry about generating profits, and part of it is due to not not committing sufficient resources to fraud prevention. Just the same, when your administrative costs are a fifth what they are in the private sector, its obvious that is not the problem as to its future solvency.

You're not getting this are you? They did what they were required to do for the programs, they followed the law, every other argument is irrelevent, and benefits are taxed, whether they have enough in benefits or not.

And you are not getting the fact that if you love your socialist program its rather hypocritical to go out and rail against socialism.

Good, you made a point that I was holding back, in a roundabout sort of way, we are already overtaxed and the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is diminished because of government overregulation and this makes someone's 48k a year "just enough" to live in most areas, and insufficient in others, so the idea from the party causing this problem is another entitlement that will require more money than currently used, thus will need to be funded by more tax, therefore people will then have less than 10% to save for retirement by your same math, since salaries don't automatically adjust, end even then they would lose MORE money in income tax.

If you are in a household earning just 48k a year or less, more than likely you are hardly paying anything in taxes outside of FICA. My point was that unless you want to have a majority of seniors without health care, we have to subsidize it somehow for them.

There are ways other than lump sum payouts to keep accumulating retirement money.

Of course, most people would get an annuity, or keep it invested and just get monthly withdrawals. Just the same, if your insurance is running you thousands of dollars a month, as it would be absent subsidies, few people could afford it no matter how well they planed for retirement.
 
The fact is, Medicare has a 3% Administrative overhead compared to around 15% in the private sector. Part of that is due to the shear size of Medicare, part due to it not having to worry about generating profits, and part of it is due to not not committing sufficient resources to fraud prevention. Just the same, when your administrative costs are a fifth what they are in the private sector, its obvious that is not the problem as to its future solvency.
The fact that Insurance overhead in private is 15%, I call bull****, first off, where did you get that from, considering adm. overhead isn't in public reporting and only insiders would know that, and secondly there is no way to rate that considering there are different companies out there, even as an average it is still disingenuous.


And you are not getting the fact that if you love your socialist program its rather hypocritical to go out and rail against socialism.
Contributory versus non-contributory, sorry, you've gotta counter that before I will acknowledge you have a point.



If you are in a household earning just 48k a year or less, more than likely you are hardly paying anything in taxes outside of FICA. My point was that unless you want to have a majority of seniors without health care, we have to subsidize it somehow for them.
Bull, it takes the average family 6+ months out of every year to pay there tax share, that extends beyond FICA.



Of course, most people would get an annuity, or keep it invested and just get monthly withdrawals. Just the same, if your insurance is running you thousands of dollars a month, as it would be absent subsidies, few people could afford it no matter how well they planed for retirement.
Thousands a month? Yeah, okay, they don't typically get that high, even traditional plans which cover everything and cost the most typically average around 5-6h, if you are stuck with a 1k/mth. plan you've done something wrong.
 
Thousands a month? Yeah, okay, they don't typically get that high, even traditional plans which cover everything and cost the most typically average around 5-6h, if you are stuck with a 1k/mth. plan you've done something wrong.

Maybe he actually had to use his insurance. They are not happy if you get sick.
 
Oh my... Now even CBS News is reporting on this.

All you need is the NY Times to weigh in, and AARP is a dead duck.

I just glad to see that seniors are figuring out what us conservatives figured out a long time ago... That the AARP is a far left liberal organization, therefore, could care less about anything but their political agenda.

.
 
Maybe he actually had to use his insurance. They are not happy if you get sick.
That shouldn't affect rates that much, and it wasn't directed as a personal thing, it was more of a collective "you".
 
Oh my... Now even CBS News is reporting on this.

All you need is the NY Times to weigh in, and AARP is a dead duck.

I just glad to see that seniors are figuring out what us conservatives figured out a long time ago... That the AARP is a far left liberal organization, therefore, could care less about anything but their political agenda.

.

Just thought it'd be a good time to point out that the seniors that left represented 0.15% of the AARP.
 
The fact that Insurance overhead in private is 15%, I call bull****, first off, where did you get that from, considering adm. overhead isn't in public reporting and only insiders would know that, and secondly there is no way to rate that considering there are different companies out there, even as an average it is still disingenuous.

Numerous studies, some even peer reviewed, have found that health insurance administrative costs are much higher in the private sector than for Medicare.

Study Finds Billions Of Health Insurance Dollars Used For Administrative Costs

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...BCSSCm8Q83LdsII0A&sig2=jpVKiiPZZTnJccaLA6SlSA

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

Contributory versus non-contributory, sorry, you've gotta counter that before I will acknowledge you have a point.
So you are saying that a public option is not something that would be contributed to by all federal tax payers? Are you saying that most medicare recipients actually paid more in medicare taxes than they will draw out in benefits?


Bull, it takes the average family 6+ months out of every year to pay there tax share, that extends beyond FICA.
So you want the federal government then to eliminate all taxes including those at the state and federal level?

Thousands a month? Yeah, okay, they don't typically get that high, even traditional plans which cover everything and cost the most typically average around 5-6h, if you are stuck with a 1k/mth. plan you've done something wrong.
I just did a quick quote on eInsurance for me and my wife assuming we were 63 years old (they wont quote for 65 and over). I just did the same coverage levels that Medicare Part A and B provide in our zip code.

For the same coverage, policy rates were between $1033.56 a month to $1,555.00 a month depending on the policy.

That would be for the same level of coverage provided by Medicare Part A and B for a perfectly healthy 63 year old couple. Of course as you got older it would only go up and as soon as you had a heart attack or anything, well, forget about being able to afford coverage.

You honestly think the average senior will be able to save enough to swing that?
 
Back
Top Bottom