• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

I know. We are stuck with this healthcare bill because the Republicans did not have the stones to enact their own bill 6 years ago.

So... the GOP is to blame for the crappy plan the Dems (almost didnt) pass?

Wow. Partisan bigotry, raised to a new level.
 
One of the problems with medicare is that the filthy rich are just as eligible as the filthy poor.
Under "universal health care", why should the wealthy be excluded?
If you pay into a system, you should not receive the benefits of that system?

I guess the redistribution of wealth is more important that good faith commitments.
 
So... the GOP is to blame for the crappy plan the Dems (almost didnt) pass?

Wow. Partisan bigotry, raised to a new level.

That's BS. The republicans had ample opportunity to enact any heathcare plan. Instead they ignored the problem hoping it would go away. Now they whine that the democrats passed healthcare reform. They only have themselves to blame. The GOP had 6 years. Obama did it in one.
 
Under "universal health care", why should the wealthy be excluded?
If you pay into a system, you should not receive the benefits of that system?

I guess the redistribution of wealth is more important that good faith commitments.

Of course the wealthy are entitled to it. The boys at AIG and Goldman Sachs are entitled.
 
Last edited:
People who live unhealthy lifestyles should pay more.
That's how it should be if you want to lower costs.



Again it keeps prices higher.
I don't control it, I just know what can lower prices and increase access.

That is only one way to lower costs and it is not a good one. You want a large pool sharing costs. You want to lower costs for everyone. Technology and automation are the best ways to lower cost.
 
That is only one way to lower costs and it is not a good one. You want a large pool sharing costs. You want to lower costs for everyone. Technology and automation are the best ways to lower cost.

That's what it is but it's specific pooling.

45 year old males with diabetes as an example, should share the same risk pool.
If that pool of people adjusts their lifestyle to something healthier, there costs will go down.

I would love better increases in technology, automation is coming about slowly but it would help if you could replace a surgeon, primary care doctor, etc, with a diagnostic machine or surgical machine.
 
As I mentioned, it is a privacy issue. Would you find it acceptable for the insurance company to request a DNA sample? Behavior is the same thing.
Statistically it is not. You don't have a genetic choice but you do have lifestyle choices, if you choose to be unhealthy insurance costs more.
 
The republican would like to use the "Book Of The Dead" to guide who gets health care.:mrgreen:
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. Did you miss the part where I'm an agent and have to learn this stuff constantly? Actuaries set risk, underwriters determine insurability and rates, simple.
 
That's what it is but it's specific pooling.

45 year old males with diabetes as an example, should share the same risk pool.
If that pool of people adjusts their lifestyle to something healthier, there costs will go down.

I would love better increases in technology, automation is coming about slowly but it would help if you could replace a surgeon, primary care doctor, etc, with a diagnostic machine or surgical machine.

Statistically it is not. You don't have a genetic choice but you do have lifestyle choices, if you choose to be unhealthy insurance costs more.

Maybe I am missing something here. I agree that costs will go up if people choose less healthy lifestyles. My contention is that those costs are not passed on to those people being unhealthy. No premium increase. Are you guys saying the premiums should go up? If so, we fundamentally disagree on this point.
 
Maybe I am missing something here. I agree that costs will go up if people choose less healthy lifestyles. My contention is that those costs are not passed on to those people being unhealthy. No premium increase. Are you guys saying the premiums should go up? If so, we fundamentally disagree on this point.
The bill shouldn't have passed, period. Eventually we'll be subsidizing anyone and everyone, that is the point.
 
Maybe I am missing something here. I agree that costs will go up if people choose less healthy lifestyles. My contention is that those costs are not passed on to those people being unhealthy. No premium increase. Are you guys saying the premiums should go up? If so, we fundamentally disagree on this point.

Essentially that has already happened but instead of the costs being placed on the unhealthy people, it is spread across the spectrum of insurance customers.

That is why, even though I have a good BMI and good overall vitals (blood pressure etc.), my costs go up.
My company raised premiums this year by 10%, even though I didn't even use my insurance, except for 2 vaccines.

When you get into a car accident that was your fault, your rates increase and for good reason, your behavior was bad.

It's not right or fair and encourages unhealthy lifestyles.
 
Essentially that has already happened but instead of the costs being placed on the unhealthy people, it is spread across the spectrum of insurance customers.

That is why, even though I have a good BMI and good overall vitals (blood pressure etc.), my costs go up.
My company raised premiums this year by 10%, even though I didn't even use my insurance, except for 2 vaccines.

When you get into a car accident that was your fault, your rates increase and for good reason, your behavior was bad.

It's not right or fair and encourages unhealthy lifestyles.
Actually, now that I think of it, if the thing ever goes full blown UHC, opponents could have a "sick in" and overwhelm the system till it collapses. :mrgreen:
 
The bill shouldn't have passed, period. Eventually we'll be subsidizing anyone and everyone, that is the point.

I do not know what our discussion has to do with subsidizing anyone.
 
Actually, now that I think of it, if the thing ever goes full blown UHC, opponents could have a "sick in" and overwhelm the system till it collapses. :mrgreen:

Well to tell you the truth, I'm going to milk it every which way I can.
To the point that my subsidy covers all my insurance costs.

I'll save a few hundred dollars a year even though I don't need it.
 
I do not know what our discussion has to do with subsidizing anyone.
That's exactly what happens under a Universal Healthcare plan, it doesn't matter if you are unhealthy or not, the only thing that matters is that if you have more to take the government will take more, and everyone gets the same ****ty medical care. So you essentially at the end of this bill will be subsidizing others choices. At least under individual policies there is an incentive to be healthy to reduce premium.
 
Well to tell you the truth, I'm going to milk it every which way I can.
To the point that my subsidy covers all my insurance costs.

I'll save a few hundred dollars a year even though I don't need it.
That won't be enough, I mean everyone should bankrupt this national shame to the point it's gotta be ended.
 
Essentially that has already happened but instead of the costs being placed on the unhealthy people, it is spread across the spectrum of insurance customers.

That is the point of insurance.

That is why, even though I have a good BMI and good overall vitals (blood pressure etc.), my costs go up.
My company raised premiums this year by 10%, even though I didn't even use my insurance, except for 2 vaccines.

It is also because of advances in technology, but a lot of cost increase comes from drugs.

When you get into a car accident that was your fault, your rates increase and for good reason, your behavior was bad.

I totally disagree with this. If you get a speeding ticket your premiums go up. It ought to be covered by the pool.

It's not right or fair and encourages unhealthy lifestyles.

When I am unhealthy, I don't think that I am getting over the insurance companies. I just want to do what I enjoy. Fairness means nothing to me. It is surely right that risk is spread out.

A company evaluates that of the 1000 41 year olds, 200 will smoke and of them 100 won't work out. Costs are calibrated and premiums for the entire 1000 is assessed.
 
That won't be enough, I mean everyone should bankrupt this national shame to the point it's gotta be ended.

I look at it like this.

The more disposable cash I have, the more I can invest, which allows me to live how I want.
For others it's a crutch, for me it's a means to an end.
 
That's exactly what happens under a Universal Healthcare plan, it doesn't matter if you are unhealthy or not, the only thing that matters is that if you have more to take the government will take more, and everyone gets the same ****ty medical care. So you essentially at the end of this bill will be subsidizing others choices. At least under individual policies there is an incentive to be healthy to reduce premium.

First, we were talking about gov't/co-op insurance for the poor, the old and the sick. Not Universal Healthcare.

Second, a premium is assessed for each member and if they can pay, they pay. The government does not take more and more.

Third, everyone subsidizes the poor. Maybe the elderly since we promised them Medicare. I suppose this ends up subsidizing their choices.

Fourth, most people are covered by group plans which does nothing to provide this incentive you are talking about.
 
First, we were talking about gov't/co-op insurance for the poor, the old and the sick. Not Universal Healthcare.
The end game for this bill is UHC, Obama has already said that even before it's presidency. This is designed specifically for private insurer failure, I don't really even want to get into the messy details, but many provisions in the bill will skyrocket premiums. By 2014 the Dems are hoping the government option is the only viable one.

Second, a premium is assessed for each member and if they can pay, they pay. The government does not take more and more.

Third, everyone subsidizes the poor. Maybe the elderly since we promised them Medicare. I suppose this ends up subsidizing their choices.

Fourth, most people are covered by group plans which does nothing to provide this incentive you are talking about.
Again, none of this will matter when the next phases of Obamascam are realized.
 
The end game for this bill is UHC, Obama has already said that even before it's presidency. This is designed specifically for private insurer failure, I don't really even want to get into the messy details, but many provisions in the bill will skyrocket premiums. By 2014 the Dems are hoping the government option is the only viable one.

Again, none of this will matter when the next phases of Obamascam are realized.

Obamacare is not going to cut it.

I am a Whig and I got my plan - co-ops at the county level funded by the local/state taxes; no more entitlements at the federal level and they drop the income tax rates.

Someone referred me to HR 3400 as the Republican's plan and that will not cut it.

Whigs ain't running nationally in 2012, only locally and let's keep it real - we ain't gonna get many (any) elected.

Republicans need to come up with a real plan, with coverage for all, and run on that to take back the Congress and WH and overturn this turd.
 
The voters elected Obama to change things and good or bad, that is what he did.
Change for the sake of change. Not for the sake of making things better, just for making them different. Brilliant policy.

Thanks a whole big ****ing lot for that.
 
Change for the sake of change. Not for the sake of making things better, just for making them different. Brilliant policy.

Thanks a whole big ****ing lot for that.
People always make this false assumption that change is good. Well, change is bad and all these people who are all so jubilant right now have no ****ing clue what's about to hit them. I'm tired of fighting this right now, so I'll await the court challenges, if this piece of **** stands I will laugh at all the poor sucker's pain when they finally see the end result of all this change. Humiliation really is appropriate for the partisan supporters of this administration and congress.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom