• 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 Raises Costs for Employees' Insurance Plans

The Prof said:
he promised a thousand times costs would go down

he failed

he promised a lot of things, like unemployment would cap at 8% if he got his stimulus, he'd cut the deficit in half in 4 years, we'd like obamacare once we got to know it, he'd be post partisan and post racial, close gitmo and end rendition and detention, talk to the leaders of iran and improve america's image abroad, try ksm in a civil court in manhattan, prosecute the waterboarders at the cia, renegotiate chinese currency, win global warming accords, end dadt (his own doj is arguing against gay rights in the districts on 2 separate matters, dadt and gay marriage), bring the israelis and palestinians together (what happened to hillary's hi profile peace talks last month?), reform immigration comprehensively (instead he sues AZ), avoid lobbyists (he's the top recipient of aig money), put legislation on line (instead nancy says we gotta pass stuff to know what's in it), be transparent (his fed instructed aig to keep secrets from the sec, he signed the infamous secret deal with phrma, he's fighting foia requests for records detailing exactly who was bailed out and how much)...

yeah, he promised lots of things

and he means well---LOL!

everyone outside the fringe recognizes he's incompetent, it's cuz he just doesn't get it, he's so outta touch, so tone deaf

as for aarp---when i was young we were all told that the most powerful special interest lobby in the usa was aipac, the american israel public affairs committee

in my middle years i always felt it was aarp (tho the nra has always been a major player)

well, aarp has just destroyed itself over this obamacare

AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com

we all of that age watched it happen, it was very ugly

aarp is the new now, they've made themselves irrelevent
Click to expand...

AARP reminds me of the usefulness of unions. They're all about maintaining themselves rather then educating seniors about the best way to live a retirement. Lobbying at the national teat is what they've become.
 
buck said:
Some have the very odd belief that since something has happened in the past, it can’t be made worse or bigger by new circumstances.

BTW, I have doubts that many companies the past have greatly reduced benefits and greatly increased health insurance premiums at the same time. Just anectodaly, I know of quite a few companies that have done this during the current annual election, including my wife's unionized job.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that at all. But you need to show it is worse. Showing it doing what it was doing isn't equal to worse.

I think if you look you'll find that comopanies were dropping insurance, raising rates, and reducing benefits before reform. My premiums dobled and cut benefits over two years ago. I'm not alone. If you need me to do your work on that, I can get you a link when I get back. But you should be able to seek that yourself I should think.
 
Boo Radley said:
Showing it doing what it was doing isn't equal to worse.
Click to expand...
Agreed, sort of. To make it worse, you have to have Change You Can Believe In, like Obamacare. Then to make it better, you go back to where you were and start over in a different direction.
 
Many people here are trying to downplay the increased cost of health insurance due to the Obamacare legislation, by portraying it as insignificant, or changing the argument to other things that are causing insurance premiums to increase.

The main point, which is inescapable, is that Obama and the democrats sold us a bill of goods that screws the many and benefits very few. Just look at the numbers.

Currently, more than 250 million people in America have some form of heath care coverage. When you subtract those who are currently eligible for Medicaid and Medicare but have not applied, those who can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase any, and the illegal aliens who are not eligible for assistance, your left with around 25 million people who may have a need for coverage, but are currently without. Then take into account, that even Obama admits that the health care bill they just passed, still won't come close to covering everyone.

When you break it down, the results of this legislation that was crammed down our throats is:

7% of Americans will still have no coverage.
8% of Americans will receive health care coverage they need, that they couldn't get before.
85% of Americans will either:
a) Pay significantly higher insurance premiums for same level of care.
b) Opt for lower quality insurance coverage to lower their premiums.
c) Lose their employee health insurance, go on government plan, and suffer a significant reduction in the quality of care.
d) For those that remain on government care, they will see longer wait times to see a doctor and receive lower quality of care due to increased public demand for services.​

Also, to sell this monstrosity we were all lied to by Obama and the democrats. They told us that this trillion dollar government expenditure would not only not add a dime to the deficit, but it would actually reduce it. It didn't take long to discover that the democrats had purposely cooked the books, and stuck us with another costly liberal social program that's destine to suck the life out of the American economy.

Directly, Obamacare will have a negative effect on 85% of the population, increase our federal deficit and put a strain on the future economy of the nation. If the government has to further increase taxes to try and pay for this program (which I think is very likely), that will have a negative impact on all Americans, both rich and poor.

Repeal it!
 
Grim17 said:
Many people here are trying to downplay the increased cost of health insurance due to the Obamacare legislation, by portraying it as insignificant, or changing the argument to other things that are causing insurance premiums to increase.

The main point, which is inescapable, is that Obama and the democrats sold us a bill of goods that screws the many and benefits very few. Just look at the numbers.

Currently, more than 250 million people in America have some form of heath care coverage. When you subtract those who are currently eligible for Medicaid and Medicare but have not applied, those who can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase any, and the illegal aliens who are not eligible for assistance, your left with around 25 million people who may have a need for coverage, but are currently without. Then take into account, that even Obama admits that the health care bill they just passed, still won't come close to covering everyone.

When you break it down, the results of this legislation that was crammed down our throats is:

7% of Americans will still have no coverage.
8% of Americans will receive health care coverage they need, that they couldn't get before.
85% of Americans will either:
a) Pay significantly higher insurance premiums for same level of care.
b) Opt for lower quality insurance coverage to lower their premiums.
c) Lose their employee health insurance, go on government plan, and suffer a significant reduction in the quality of care.
d) For those that remain on government care, they will see longer wait times to see a doctor and receive lower quality of care due to increased public demand for services.​

Also, to sell this monstrosity we were all lied to by Obama and the democrats. They told us that this trillion dollar government expenditure would not only not add a dime to the deficit, but it would actually reduce it. It didn't take long to discover that the democrats had purposely cooked the books, and stuck us with another costly liberal social program that's destine to suck the life out of the American economy.

Directly, Obamacare will have a negative effect on 85% of the population, increase our federal deficit and put a strain on the future economy of the nation. If the government has to further increase taxes to try and pay for this program (which I think is very likely), that will have a negative impact on all Americans, both rich and poor.

Repeal it!
Click to expand...

20090909-You-Lie.jpg
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that at all. But you need to show it is worse. Showing it doing what it was doing isn't equal to worse.

I think if you look you'll find that comopanies were dropping insurance, raising rates, and reducing benefits before reform. My premiums dobled and cut benefits over two years ago. I'm not alone. If you need me to do your work on that, I can get you a link when I get back. But you should be able to seek that yourself I should think.
Click to expand...

Enough info has come out that indicates that premiums are going to be higher then they otherwise would have been specifically due to this legislation. You just choose to pretend it doesn't exsit because you believe they're all in on the conspriacy to trick you.

Would medical inflation have happened without this bill? Absolutely. But this bill is adding additional costs that would not have existed otherwise. But, just close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.
 
buck said:
Enough info has come out that indicates that premiums are going to be higher then they otherwise would have been specifically due to this legislation. You just choose to pretend it doesn't exsit because you believe they're all in on the conspriacy to trick you.

Would medical inflation have happened without this bill? Absolutely. But this bill is adding additional costs that would not have existed otherwise. But, just close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that, or at least that they should be. I accept that some will use tis as an excuse, but they've been using excuses for decades now. We need something more objective, smoething that shows why having more people on the rolls doesn't cover the added expenditure. I have seen nothing that apporaches the question is this manner. Instead, opponents of the bill use the mere fact that premiums have risen is proof wihtout asking any questions.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that, or at least that they should be. I accept that some will use tis as an excuse, but they've been using excuses for decades now. We need something more objective, smoething that shows why having more people on the rolls doesn't cover the added expenditure. I have seen nothing that apporaches the question is this manner. Instead, opponents of the bill use the mere fact that premiums have risen is proof wihtout asking any questions.
Click to expand...

Could it be that the people being added to the roles are not paying for the coverage, yet, rather the individuals already on the rolls are paying for them?

How in the hell, do you add 30 million people to anything, and expect cost to go down? That seems common sensibly insane to me.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Could it be that the people being added to the roles are not paying for the coverage, yet, rather the individuals already on the rolls are paying for them?

How in the hell, do you add 30 million people to anything, and expect cost to go down? That seems common sensibly insane to me.

j-mac
Click to expand...

They can't be added until they are. Insurance companies don't pay for anyone who isn't.

And as those 30 million pay, as far as the insurance companies are concerned, how can that new money not pay for it? Common sense. Coverage isn't free.
 
Boo Radley said:
They can't be added until they are. Insurance companies don't pay for anyone who isn't.

And as those 30 million pay, as far as the insurance companies are concerned, how can that new money not pay for it? Common sense. Coverage isn't free.
Click to expand...

How many of that 30 Million will be added to the roles of Medicaid?

Do you know?


j-mac
 
Come on folks...surely you see how this is all going to work. The plan doesnt truly even kick in til 2014, with the plan being that for some strange reason, the costs really are going to be higher so that the only truly right and effective solution is to eliminate medicare/medicaid, VA hospitals, and ultimately all private insurance as we slide into universal health care by 2018...and not to worry...because YES...it will cost you a ton of taxes, but less than what insurance was costing you...winner all around. Barney Frank is on video as saying this is the only way to get to Universal Health care. Obama is on video as are several other prominent democrats supporting the move to universal health care.

And no one should be surprised that AARP and other insurance companies will raise their costs and blame Obamacare. They too see the caboose of the gravy train. Gots to get theirs while they can.
 
VanceMack said:
And no one should be surprised that AARP and other insurance companies will raise their costs and blame Obamacare. They too see the caboose of the gravy train. Gots to get theirs while they can.
Click to expand...

Obamacare limits the profit an insurance company can make. 85% of the premium dollar must be used on health care. The remaining 15% is for salaries, fighting fraud, profit, etc. So, they can't raise their premiums just to "get theirs".
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Obamacare limits the profit an insurance company can make. 85% of the premium dollar must be used on health care. The remaining 15% is for salaries, fighting fraud, profit, etc. So, they can't raise their premiums just to "get theirs".
Click to expand...

And you probably believe 'non-profit agencies' are actually 'non-profit'....

I work with insurance agencies, hospitals, doctors offices, etc. I promise you they have all looked for ways to squeeze out more nickels and justify their costs.

Or I'm simply wrong...they are being totally honest and legit and yes...Obamacare has already cost them that much more...
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
How many of that 30 Million will be added to the roles of Medicaid?

Do you know?


j-mac
Click to expand...

For this discussion, it doesn't matter (so don't change the subject). Insurance companies are apid, take premiums, and therefore can't argue they are they are giving anything for free. If they are talking in more people, this adds to their intake. This could more than cover what is being asked of them. Should we take their word, or ask for something more objective as evidence?
 
VanceMack said:
And you probably believe 'non-profit agencies' are actually 'non-profit'....

I work with insurance agencies, hospitals, doctors offices, etc. I promise you they have all looked for ways to squeeze out more nickels and justify their costs.

Or I'm simply wrong...they are being totally honest and legit and yes...Obamacare has already cost them that much more...
Click to expand...


And I work for an insurance company and work closely with agents and insurance agencies (i would expect their commission levels to be reduced BTW). Anyway, now that we've both given our bonafides...

To justify their costs as health care related, they will have to fall within the specific guidelines as issued by HHS. So far, only draft guidelines have been issued, but soon they will be official.

At that time, the insurance companies won't have any room to "justify costs". If they do not follow the law (And I guess it's possible an occasional company will not) they will face the consequences.

Regardless, you're not going to find 100.0% of the iinsurance companies breaking the law in such a manner, which is what you would have to believe in order to think they've all recently and unjustly raised their premiums in response to Obamacare just to "get theirs".
 
Last edited:
buck said:
And I work for an insurance company and work closely with agents and insurance agencies (i would expect their commission levels to be reduced BTW). Anyway, now that we've both given our bonafides...

To justify their costs as health care related, they will have to fall within the specific guidelines as issued by HHS. So far, only draft guidelines have been issued, but soon they will be official.

At that time, the insurance companies won't have any room to "justify costs". If they do not follow the law (And I guess it's possible an occasional company will not) they will face the consequences.

Regardless, you're not going to find 100.0% of the iinsurance companies breaking the law in such a manner, which is what you would have to believe in order to think they've all recently and unjustly raised their premiums in response to Obamacare just to "get theirs".
Click to expand...

So if I understand your perspective, AARP is indeed proposing premium increases of up to 40% specifically due to the costs associated with Obamacare? (not a fair term by the way...Its Reid/PelosiCare...or simply Demicare)
 
VanceMack said:
So if I understand your perspective, AARP is indeed proposing premium increases of up to 40% specifically due to the costs associated with Obamacare? (not a fair term by the way...Its Reid/PelosiCare...or simply Demicare)
Click to expand...

Insurance companies and companies that are self-insured are increasing premiums for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is Obamacare. Obamacare is causing insurance companies to increase their premiums higher than they otherwise would have. Insurance companies can't increase their premiums just to "get theirs". Not only is it illegal, but those increases would easily be rejected by the state commissioners that have that power and the feds who have since been given that power.

We can look at the result of Romneycare in MA to see that premiums will be higher. The numbers aren't exact, but premiums in MA increased by nearly 50 percent since the passage of Romneycare. Premiums in the rest of the country only increased by about 38 percent during that same time period. Again, I'm going off of memory (being lazy), but it was something very close to that. The premiums in MA would have been even higher, but the governor ordered the insurance commissioner to reject premium increases - a move later found illegal by the state's supreme court and those premium increases have since been coming in.
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse it matters....It is the end goal.

j-mac
Click to expand...

What is? I know the Beckish conpiracy stuff goes wild in some, but please stay focused on the discussion before you. Answer the poitn and don't wonder off down fanasty land lane. :coffeepap
 
I refuse to join AARP because I see them as an extension of the democrat party. Seems the democrats are not happy with Obama care and blaming their own party for this increase.
 
ptif219 said:
I refuse to join AARP because I see them as an extension of the democrat party. Seems the democrats are not happy with Obama care and blaming their own party for this increase.
Click to expand...

Or they are concerned about the elderly. But, your opinion is yours and you're free to have it. Doesn't mean you're right though.
 
Boo Radley said:
Or they are concerned about the elderly. But, your opinion is yours and you're free to have it. Doesn't mean you're right though.
Click to expand...

I have watched there political involvement and they lean heavily democrat. That is why I will not join them even though I am eligible and get their fliers regularly. They are a political left leaning organization that hides behind the elderly. I think they are not credible and despicable.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
I have watched there political involvement and they lean heavily democrat. That is why I will not join them even though I am eligible and get their fliers regularly. They are a political left leaning organization that hides behind the elderly. I think they are not credible and despicable.
Click to expand...

Most likely because that lean best represents their needs. Just saying. . . . :coffeepap
 
ptif219 said:
Just like Unions
JC-hysterical.gif
.
Click to expand...

Like unoins what? I'm not a union person myself, but yes, a union should consider what is best for it's employees, and that is often linked to democrat policy. Why? Because those policies are in the best interest of the working person in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom