• 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!

Southern governors secede from Medicaid

The problem is, right now, this is a bit of reality that the left wants to erase from the discussion. They want everyone to believe that the majority want this new healthcare crap.

Of course, the right ignores polls as well.

But why would any politician ever actually care what the people want or think? They got theirs.

They keep complaining that O refuses to actually campaign in favor of O-care. I wonder what his focus groups are telling him.
 
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation? I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.

hey, I just read in another thread that justabubba wants to spend billions on bullet trains to nowhere, so why not??
 
hey, I just read in another thread that justabubba wants to spend billions on bullet trains to nowhere, so why not??

Oh no i'm with him on that one but someone will have to point me in the direction of the appropriate thread...
 
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation? I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.

there is no one who will be unable to afford to buy healthcare coverage
and for those with no income, there will be coverage
 
Fred loses his job and goes on state aid (in Texas). Suddenly he gets sick, but since he doesn't have a job, he doesn't have health insurance. He goes to the state, but they tell him that they're not accepting any new Medicaid patients. Fred and his wife have to leave Texas and move to Arkansas where he CAN get Medicaid. Not only doesn't Texas end up paying for the Medicaid bill, but once Fred and his wife leave Texas they don't pay for his welfare either.
Sick Fred with no job moves?
How does Sick Fred pay for his moving expenses?
How does Sick Fred cover his deposit on his new place to live?

Sick Fred stays in place w/o the wherewithal to leave his current situation.
 
Sick Fred with no job moves?
How does Sick Fred pay for his moving expenses?
How does Sick Fred cover his deposit on his new place to live?

Sick Fred stays in place w/o the wherewithal to leave his current situation.

Sick Fred isn't moving into a new apartment. He's moving into a motel or something of that sort. He doesn't have much to move. He's had to sell/pawn most of it to pay their expenses for the six months he's already been out of work. However, he knows that if he can get to Arkansas and establish some form of residence, that he can likely get Medicaid coverage for both him and his wife; whereas if they stay in Texas all they get is the Emergency Room "Patch em up and kick em out" system, which may not work for his or his wife's ailments.
 
The "freebies", is that what you mean?

No.

Extended coverage of college students on their parents' plan.

No more denied coverage due to preecisting conditions.

Only 20% of premium payments going to administrative costs.

Closing of the donut hole for seniors.

Just to name a few.
 
He's moving into a motel or something of that sort. ... However, he knows that if he can get to Arkansas and establish some form of residence...
I don't think we give residency to people in motels. I could be wrong though.
Ime, motels are much more expensive than houses and apartments.
that he can likely get Medicaid coverage for both him and his wife; whereas if they stay in Texas all they get is the Emergency Room "Patch em up and kick em out" system, which may not work for his or his wife's ailments.
His motivation is assumed. But I don't think he has the wherewithal despite his motivation.
 
Sick Fred isn't moving into a new apartment. He's moving into a motel or something of that sort. He doesn't have much to move. He's had to sell/pawn most of it to pay their expenses for the six months he's already been out of work. However, he knows that if he can get to Arkansas and establish some form of residence, that he can likely get Medicaid coverage for both him and his wife; whereas if they stay in Texas all they get is the Emergency Room "Patch em up and kick em out" system, which may not work for his or his wife's ailments.

You are assuming that Sick Fred actually does get a job that he can get to earn money to pay for a motel.
 
No.

Extended coverage of college students on their parents' plan.

No more denied coverage due to preecisting conditions.

Only 20% of premium payments going to administrative costs.

Closing of the donut hole for seniors.

Just to name a few.

Exactly! You are quoting the "freebies". How many people favor the parts that "pay" for the goodies? That is precisely why the package is so unpopular.
 
so, the current updated theory is that completely broke people are going to flock to live in motels in Arkansas for medicaid? what does that look like? i can see it now : "come on, kids, pack up the Hudson, we're going to the extended stay America to live!" what complete bologna.

somebody doesn't hang out with us regular folk much.
 
Exactly! You are quoting the "freebies". How many people favor the parts that "pay" for the goodies? That is precisely why the package is so unpopular.

No.

People will pay for it themselves since there is an individual mandate.

So because people will pay for their own health insurance, there are no "freebies."
 
Extended coverage of college students on their parents' plan.

No more denied coverage due to preecisting conditions.

All which raise rates. Funny thing reality is, the more you cover, and the more that is covered, the higher the rates, as the 'risk' is higher.

Only 20% of premium payments going to administrative costs.

Unrealistic. What other industries has the government set limits on administrative costs on? When most of that industry is pushing paperwork?
 
Rasmussen has been polling on this every 1-2 weeks since the scheme was enacted. Their results have been remarkably consistant over time and with other surveys:

Health Care Law
53% Want Health Care Law Repealed

Monday, July 9, 2012

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

Most voters still aren’t convinced: They want President Obama’s national health care law repealed as they have said consistently since the measure was passed by Congress over two years ago.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor the repeal of the health care law, while 41% are opposed. These findings include 43% who Strongly Favor repeal and 31% who Strongly Oppose it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 7-8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Why is it the only poll Republicans ever pay any attention to is Rasmussen - the poll that leans right on everything and everybody?

Poll: 'Obamacare' Gains Support, Public Opinion Now Split | TPM Livewire
 
Of course, it's racism! As always.

.

If you say so. I wouldn't go that far. I merely point out that the mental midgets running these states are the natural successor's to the clowns that voted for secession so that they could continue to own slaves.
 
Exactly! You are quoting the "freebies". How many people favor the parts that "pay" for the goodies? That is precisely why the package is so unpopular.

Except it isn't unpopular. The American public is evenly split on the issue, with some of those opposed taking that position because they don't feel Obamacare goes far enough. Really, get out of relying on Rasmussen for all of your information.
 
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation?

Well fortunately that isn't what this law does. It makes health care affordable for many more people, by providing government subsidies for everyone whose income is less than 400% of the poverty line. That's $44,000 for a single person or $92,000 for a family of four...not exactly impoverished. Anyone earning less than that will be eligible for government subsidies. And if for some reason, they still can't afford health insurance, they will be exempted from the mandate anyway due to financial hardship.

I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.

The states have had 200+ years to do so, and they have utterly failed.
 
Just a thought:

Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.

So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?
 
The states have had 200+ years to do so, and they have utterly failed.

First, they haven't had anywhere near 200+ years, do a bit digging into the history of actual healthcare.

Second, if the people wanted it in any state, it would have happened. Suggesting that because x didn't happen, the people wanted x is a silly argument.
 
Just a thought:

Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.

So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?

I think you have it a little mixed up.

The law says that no more than 20% of payments from consumers can be used to pay for administrative costs. So it puts a cap on what insurance companies can pay in regards to salaries from revenue brought in by premiums.

So in a bad year, an insurance company can, for instance, go 90/10 in regards to how much of its premiums are used to pay for administrative costs in order to pay for coverage. What the law limits, however, is, during good years, an insurance company using 70/30 of premium payments to be used to pay for administrative costs.

So the 80/20 ratio is a cap, not a constant, and insurance companies can use more of the money from premiums to pay out for coverage but not less.
 
I think you have it a little mixed up.

The law says that no more than 20% of payments from consumers can be used to pay for administrative costs. So it puts a cap on what insurance companies can pay in regards to salaries from revenue brought in by premiums.

So in a bad year, an insurance company can, for instance, go 90/10 in regards to how much of its premiums are used to pay for administrative costs in order to pay for coverage. What the law limits, however, is, during good years, an insurance company using 70/30 of premium payments to be used to pay for administrative costs.

So the 80/20 ratio is a cap, not a constant, and insurance companies can use more of the money from premiums to pay out for coverage but not less.

It is primarily to keep new players out of the game, but it does limit the overhead/profit somewhat. The large companies must pay out 85% in direct medcial care costs. The scale of large insurance companies makes them much more stable and profitable, yet the new risk based limits on premiums, allowing only for age and smoking to be considered, along with many more "first dollar" coverage mandates will raise premiums for everyone. The obesity and gender risks were dropped, from actuarial premium consideration, by PPACA to due "political correctness" so now all will pay more instead of only those that pose higher risk.
 
No.

People will pay for it themselves since there is an individual mandate.

So because people will pay for their own health insurance, there are no "freebies."

Oh, RIGHT, I forgot. NO SUBSIDIES. Taxpayers off the hook, thank G-d! :lamo
 
All which raise rates. Funny thing reality is, the more you cover, and the more that is covered, the higher the rates, as the 'risk' is higher.

Unrealistic. What other industries has the government set limits on administrative costs on? When most of that industry is pushing paperwork?

But WAIT! Obamacare bends the cost curve! O promised!!
 
Just a thought:

Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.

So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...

They could still have a reserve during a good year, it would just have to come out of the remaining 20%. Similarly, if they didn't have a reserve they could just post a corporate bond, and then pay its interest out of the remaining 20%.

what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?

If it's just one year, no big deal. They borrow money and pay it back next time they have a good year. If it's a consistent problem, then they just aren't charging enough for premiums.
 
Back
Top Bottom