Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: Health law could ban low-cost plans

  1. #51
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,719

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    This is a strawman. My health insurance is through my employer and I was able to read the everything just fine.
    Oh well if you read through it and understood everything then surely nobody ever anywhere would get tricked by a shady insurance plan written in a 50-page lawyer-speak document.
    It's not a strawman. There are insurance policies out there that are well-disguised crap. People buy them and get screwed over when a claim finally gets filed. We stop the Chinese from selling their death-trap cars in the US because when a car gets the very rare "Zero Star" crash test rating from the IIHS, it shouldn't be on the road. People would have bought them, I think the plan was to sell them for like $6000. A bad product is one thing, but a bad product that can ruin lives because of it needs to be handled.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #52
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Oh well if you read through it and understood everything then surely nobody ever anywhere would get tricked by a shady insurance plan written in a 50-page lawyer-speak document.
    It's not a strawman. There are insurance policies out there that are well-disguised crap. People buy them and get screwed over when a claim finally gets filed. We stop the Chinese from selling their death-trap cars in the US because when a car gets the very rare "Zero Star" crash test rating from the IIHS, it shouldn't be on the road. People would have bought them, I think the plan was to sell them for like $6000. A bad product is one thing, but a bad product that can ruin lives because of it needs to be handled.
    And that's a part of the government's paternalism. For a car there is actually less excuse to ban it because people understand how much a zero star crash rating sucks! Next to no one would buy the car in the first place even if it was cheap so that particular law is probably a combination idiotic paternalism and idiotic protectionism that probably ought to get repealed.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion View Post
    So you would instead not have these plans and give them no access? I dislike arguments like these because they ignore that not everyone can afford the same level of coverage, and just paying to have everyone get the same level of coverage either leads to some other form of rationing, or higher prices until even the government isn't willing to pay for everybody. Low cost plans don't provide the most complete coverage but they are better than no coverage. Its like the argument about a "living wage". There is lots of economic evidence that putting in a "living wage" requirement will raise unemployment. So instead of having some people having a job the at least pays something, we end up making these same people unemployed and getting paid nothing. That makes no sense. Its not helping people to "protect" them from cheap plans, its decreasing access.
    I will say this. Paying for something that really can't help you isn't sound for anyone. I recall a person in an employee meeting wanting cheaper premiums even if it meant the policy wouldn't cover anything. So, what was the point in paying in the first place?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #54
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I will say this. Paying for something that really can't help you isn't sound for anyone. I recall a person in an employee meeting wanting cheaper premiums even if it meant the policy wouldn't cover anything. So, what was the point in paying in the first place?
    You think they get absolutely no help at all? None? Cause it seems like the main complaint is that they cap the amount you get helped, which would mean you have been helped, just a limited amount. And if the insurance company tries to find a reason to not pay you (often times they are right to do this as its not like insurance fraud never happens) that still gives you a greater chance of getting something then not paying in the first place. So I still stand by some coverage, even low quality, is better than none (unless of course you've got some pretty damn good evidence that you don't need coverage in the first place).

  5. #55
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion View Post
    You think they get absolutely no help at all? None? Cause it seems like the main complaint is that they cap the amount you get helped, which would mean you have been helped, just a limited amount. And if the insurance company tries to find a reason to not pay you (often times they are right to do this as its not like insurance fraud never happens) that still gives you a greater chance of getting something then not paying in the first place. So I still stand by some coverage, even low quality, is better than none (unless of course you've got some pretty damn good evidence that you don't need coverage in the first place).
    Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #56
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?
    And I still stand by the question in the case is not "adequate" vs. "inadequate" coverage but limited vs. no coverage. You're dismissal of low cost plans as basically nothing ignore that they cover the low cost items that most people actually use coverage for and thus are better than nothing. Few people ever use the really expensive health care coverage and forcing people to buy more expensive plans that do that doesn't help them, it merely cuts off the cheap coverage for those who can't afford the expensive stuff. If banning low-cost insurance actually led to people having better coverage rather than simply "no coverage is better than bad coverage" then you might have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't.

  7. #57
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?
    I can argue that I don't need coverage, and I'm certainly not wealthy. I can argue that no one does and insurance ought to be done away with completely. Insurance and government involvement are the two primary reasons for increasing costs, and decreasing quality of care. Without those two goliaths forcing prices up and tying doctor's hands, the prices would go down considerably and people could pay out of pocket again. Why let insurance and govt dictate your healthcare? It's YOUR body. The patient should be put back in charge, in full control of their healthcare plan. Competition will drive prices down just like it has in the elective healthcare markets. In those markets, where govt and insurance involvement are minimal or non-existent, the prices continue to drop while technology continually advances.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I can argue that I don't need coverage, and I'm certainly not wealthy. I can argue that no one does and insurance ought to be done away with completely. Insurance and government involvement are the two primary reasons for increasing costs, and decreasing quality of care. Without those two goliaths forcing prices up and tying doctor's hands, the prices would go down considerably and people could pay out of pocket again. Why let insurance and govt dictate your healthcare? It's YOUR body. The patient should be put back in charge, in full control of their healthcare plan. Competition will drive prices down just like it has in the elective healthcare markets. In those markets, where govt and insurance involvement are minimal or non-existent, the prices continue to drop while technology continually advances.
    You would be wrong. Physicians will not go back to trading care for fruits and vegatables. Technology will not become affordable for most. All you will see is largely what we saw before insurance, only the wealthy would get care. And without the town doctor, willing to to do minimal care for fruits and vegatables, it would be worse. Quality care costs, technology costs, and doctors won't do the job for minimum wage.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion View Post
    And I still stand by the question in the case is not "adequate" vs. "inadequate" coverage but limited vs. no coverage. You're dismissal of low cost plans as basically nothing ignore that they cover the low cost items that most people actually use coverage for and thus are better than nothing. Few people ever use the really expensive health care coverage and forcing people to buy more expensive plans that do that doesn't help them, it merely cuts off the cheap coverage for those who can't afford the expensive stuff. If banning low-cost insurance actually led to people having better coverage rather than simply "no coverage is better than bad coverage" then you might have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't.
    Limited to the point of not being able to handle the required needs is the definition of inadequate. So, it really is a case adequate versus inadequate. And few people KNOW when and what they will actually need. That's the point behind insurance. And for insurance to be affordable for all, they need to have people who are well paying in. If not, then the effort is going to fail. Insurance that at the end of the day leaves someone who guessed wrong unable to pay, and that leaves us paying for them, is by all reasonable definitions inadequate.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #60
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You would be wrong. Physicians will not go back to trading care for fruits and vegatables. Technology will not become affordable for most. All you will see is largely what we saw before insurance, only the wealthy would get care. And without the town doctor, willing to to do minimal care for fruits and vegatables, it would be worse. Quality care costs, technology costs, and doctors won't do the job for minimum wage.
    And yet it works just like I said for an entire section of the healthcare market. Weird, huh? Technology advances and competition drives costs down.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •