• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are you ready???

GunFora said:
But...but....but Mr. Obama promised that insurance premiums would go down. :boohoo:This can't be!! Let me show you my surprised look. :eek:
Click to expand...
As long as there's for-profit insurers in the mix, without mandatory cost containment, this is the face of modern American healthcare, and it's not going to get better.

No matter what Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan, or any other elected official lays on us.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't see any proof of that at all.

I see industry profiteering.
Click to expand...

The proof is all around you.

Changes in government regulations could result in loss of business and/or increased costs. for CDI (CDI)

The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion | Zero Hedge

The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks

And concerning hospital costs in particular:

http://www.lauraingraham.com/b/The-...eatment-costs-so-much/149887728682380377.html

Medscape: Medscape Access

http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=30308


Chomsky said:
Yes, I agree. A benefit, entitlement, right, whatever, should be applied equally across all citizens.

Prior to the ACA I've generally seen private insurer's profit + overhead numbers in excess of 20%. Since the rollout of the ACA in 2011, the ACA has capped this figure between 15-20% depending on the insurer's size. Consequently, the industry composite now number appears around 17%.

It also appears that since then, Medicare overhead costs have dropped to around 2%. (opponents still often claim 5%)

I've linked (below) a .pdf from "The Council for Affordable Health Insurance", which is an insurance PR lobbying group, and very pro insurance companies.

Table 2 & table 3 have the pertinent data.

Please note: This document actually tries to defend private insurers (but the data speaks for itself)!

CAHI - 'Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs:'
Click to expand...

Table 3 shows the profit margin...and it's nowhere near what you claimed it to be. Sorry, but I don't accept that link as proof of your contention.


Perhaps you may want to cite that.

These are "freemarket" rates - things people find on their self-pay or insurance paid hospital bills.

I have yet to see any proof of this.
Click to expand...

See my proof above.

I know several individuals on Medicare, including my Mom & Uncle, and they seem to be doing fine; without Medicare, they would be un-insurable and deeply in debth. I also know a few people on Medicaid, and it meets their needs sufficiently as well, it seems. If Medicaid wasn't seen as a stepchild handout to the poor, but was the national healthcare policy with adequate support, I believe it would work very well.

And from my link above, it can be seen government healthcare does a better job on costs & cost containment.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the complete document, but the question isn't who does a better job on costs and cost containment...but on who actually picks up the tab and how much it costs THEM. You seem to want the taxpayer to pick up the tab whether they benefit or not.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:



All over the country...Obamacare insurance premiums will be increasing next year. Add to that the increase in the cost of health care, itself...and we are in for a double whammy.

As the guy said..."What's the point of insurance if I'm paying all this money out of pocket anyway?"
Click to expand...


Guess what? It goes up every year, where have you been? I administered benefits at 2 companies, and it always went up.
 
beefheart said:
Guess what? It goes up every year, where have you been? I administered benefits at 2 companies, and it always went up.
Click to expand...

How much?

And...are you talking about individual Obamacare accounts that were supposed to REDUCE premiums?

In any case, these increases you are talking about...why did they go up? Because of increases in the cost of health care? Or some other reason? If because of increases in the cost of health care, what caused that increase? (I'm betting government regulations have a lot to do with it)
 
Mycroft said:
How much?

And...are you talking about individual Obamacare accounts that were supposed to REDUCE premiums?

In any case, these increases you are talking about...why did they go up? Because of increases in the cost of health care? Or some other reason? If because of increases in the cost of health care, what caused that increase? (I'm betting government regulations have a lot to do with it)
Click to expand...

No, usually they came in with a 11-12% increase, and we negotiated and tweaked, and usually it went up about 6-7%. Not government regulations, this was before Obamacare.

Hint: health care is expensive.
 
Yep.

people were warned this would happen.

Dimocrats yelled LEFT WING FEAR MONGERING

And see what we get.

Many people will be put out in the streets for this next year.
 
beefheart said:
No, usually they came in with a 11-12% increase, and we negotiated and tweaked, and usually it went up about 6-7%. Not government regulations, this was before Obamacare.

Hint: health care is expensive.
Click to expand...

Again...when comparing premium increases you need to decide if you are talking about individual policies...as Obamacare is...or employer selected group policies...which seem to be what you are talking about. Anything else is comparing apples to oranges. In any case, you haven't cited the cause of the increases at these companies you mention...you just say it wasn't because of government regulations. Give me facts, please.

Speaking of facts...

A December 2013 analysis from eHealthInsurance.com, for example, noted that premiums for individual health plans increased by an average of 37 percent between 2005 and 2013, before the full impact of the law was felt on the market. The average premium increase for individual health plans between 2013 and 2014, after ObamaCare was fully implemented, was 39 percent.

Though this particular narrative is a worthy point, a study recently published by Brookings Institution offers a look at ObamaCare's impact on the individual insurance market from a different perspective. The authors of the study look at trends in the states and found that premiums increased in 2014 far beyond what they would have had ObamaCare not been law.

“In the vast majority of states, in the first quarter of 2014 premiums rose relative to state seasonally adjusted trends. Health insurance premiums almost always go up, but it is striking that they went up so much relative to trend,” Amanda Kowalski explains. “Across all states, from before the reform to the first half of 2014, enrollment-weighted premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed state-level seasonally adjusted trends.”

In other words, premiums for plans available on the individual market were up nearly a quarter of what they would have been through the first half of 2014 had ObamaCare never been passed. Now, it is important to point out that these are unsubsidized premiums. The monies used to subsidize coverage are not, however, created out of thin air; those costs fall on taxpayers, who are bearing the weight of the premium increases caused by ObamaCare.

Insurance Premiums Would Be Nearly 25 Percent Lower If ObamaCare Hadn't Become Law | Opinion - Conservative
Click to expand...


The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.

Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.

An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...
 
Chomsky said:
Your situation is exactly why tying healthcare coverage to employment is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

This whole situation was the result of tax breaks for industry to offer benefits. My boss could write off health care but not a raise so I could choose my own health care. It was the government that took the money out of the workers pocket and put it in the hands of industry.

Chomsky said:
No one should have to chose employment by healthcare needs - it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The problem is everyone can afford insurance when we are young and coverage is cheap. The problem comes when we get old and start needing the money we paid in. The only problem is the insurance companies did not put the money aside for when we need it but instead gave it out to stock holders and CEO making them rich. Plus competition between insurance companies caused them to give discounts to younger people in an attempt to sign large groups. I sat in on meetings as a manager with the boss and the insurance companies while they explained how getting rid of older high risk personnel would save them money. They forgot to mention how they got rich on the 40 years these older high risk people paid for insurance but didn't need it.

Chomsky said:
And that's not to speak of how many more Americans could consider starting a business or furthering their education or skills, if they didn't fear losing their healthcare by making life changes for the (otherwise) better.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The problem is who pays for all this health care. The first step is to cut tax breaks to industry to insure its employees. The next step is impossible but the money industry spent on health care needs to go back to the worker in the form of increased salary. The final step is to tax everyone to pay for health care. Everyone is offered it and everyone must pay for it. If the rich do not want to use it and maintain better health care out of pocket so be it. But the government and all its employees including the army need to be included in this coverage.

The problem is how do you make it fair for everyone. While the government worker may get 3 hour to replace their platinum health care the average worker will get probably nothing or very little in the form of a raise. But they will still have to pay in the same as everyone else. And of course the 3rd generation professional welfare recipients will continue to abuse the system by contributing nothing but dead weight.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
This whole situation was the result of tax breaks for industry to offer benefits. My boss could write off health care but not a raise so I could choose my own health care. It was the government that took the money out of the workers pocket and put it in the hands of industry.



Exactly. The problem is everyone can afford insurance when we are young and coverage is cheap. The problem comes when we get old and start needing the money we paid in. The only problem is the insurance companies did not put the money aside for when we need it but instead gave it out to stock holders and CEO making them rich. Plus competition between insurance companies caused them to give discounts to younger people in an attempt to sign large groups. I sat in on meetings as a manager with the boss and the insurance companies while they explained how getting rid of older high risk personnel would save them money. They forgot to mention how they got rich on the 40 years these older high risk people paid for insurance but didn't need it.



Exactly. The problem is who pays for all this health care. The first step is to cut tax breaks to industry to insure its employees. The next step is impossible but the money industry spent on health care needs to go back to the worker in the form of increased salary. The final step is to tax everyone to pay for health care. Everyone is offered it and everyone must pay for it. If the rich do not want to use it and maintain better health care out of pocket so be it. But the government and all its employees including the army need to be included in this coverage.

The problem is how do you make it fair for everyone. While the government worker may get 3 hour to replace their platinum health care the average worker will get probably nothing or very little in the form of a raise. But they will still have to pay in the same as everyone else. And of course the 3rd generation professional welfare recipients will continue to abuse the system by contributing nothing but dead weight.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you about your general impressions about the health insurance industry and the effect government has had upon it, Mr. PIPEWRENCH, but let's stipulate that your contentions are accurate. The question remains, then...if the government screwed the whole thing up, why on earth would you think the government could fix things?

The fact is...whenever the government gets involved in an industry, it ends up costing more. We've seen that with Obamacare...and you want the government to take total control over our healthcare. As I said to another forum member...that's insanity.
 
Chomsky said:
As long as there's for-profit insurers in the mix, without mandatory cost containment, this is the face of modern American healthcare, and it's not going to get better.

No matter what Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan, or any other elected official lays on us.
Click to expand...

Obama should have informed his followers of such....instead he opted to lie about it.
 
Mycroft said:
The question remains, then...if the government screwed the whole thing up, why on earth would you think the government could fix things?
Click to expand...

A government by the people and for the people could fix it. But our government no longer serves the people but rules over the people. Our government no longer protects our rights but restricts and requires we get permission from the government for our rights.

The government needs to regulate the insurance companies so they provide health care for the people not make millionaires and billionaires out of the money we pay in. The insurance companies use our money we pay in to fund the candidates of both political parties that control our government instead of using the money to provide affordable health care for us. It is called special interest.

The idea behind insurance was to take the money from everyone and invest it so there would be plenty of money to pay for health care that the individual could never afford. Instead of investing and putting our money aside for when it is needed they line their pockets with it and then charge us extra when we need the money. Or they cancel and refuse to insure us when we finally reach an age where we will need the insurance. We do not need to have our premiums make millionaires and billionaires but to pay for health care cost if and when we need it.

The problem today is our premiums are being used to buy our government and to make people rich not provide the affordable health care we need.

Mycroft said:
The fact is...whenever the government gets involved in an industry, it ends up costing more. We've seen that with Obamacare...and you want the government to take total control over our healthcare. As I said to another forum member...that's insanity.
Click to expand...

No our government is doing a fine job of taking care of the insurance companies who use our premiums to fund the candidates that do their bidding. As long as industry funds both parties both parties will take care of industry. They have taken control of our government and keep us divided in order to maintain control. They do give us the illusion of choice. Just as long as we do not unite and take back our government.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
A government by the people and for the people could fix it. But our government no longer serves the people but rules over the people. Our government no longer protects our rights but restricts and requires we get permission from the government for our rights.

The government needs to regulate the insurance companies so they provide health care for the people not make millionaires and billionaires out of the money we pay in. The insurance companies use our money we pay in to fund the candidates of both political parties that control our government instead of using the money to provide affordable health care for us. It is called special interest.

The idea behind insurance was to take the money from everyone and invest it so there would be plenty of money to pay for health care that the individual could never afford. Instead of investing and putting our money aside for when it is needed they line their pockets with it and then charge us extra when we need the money. Or they cancel and refuse to insure us when we finally reach an age where we will need the insurance. We do not need to have our premiums make millionaires and billionaires but to pay for health care cost if and when we need it.

The problem today is our premiums are being used to buy our government and to make people rich not provide the affordable health care we need.



No our government is doing a fine job of taking care of the insurance companies who use our premiums to fund the candidates that do their bidding. As long as industry funds both parties both parties will take care of industry. They have taken control of our government and keep us divided in order to maintain control. They do give us the illusion of choice. Just as long as we do not unite and take back our government.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

I think you should make up your mind...

Do you dislike the government's actions? Or do you want the government to keep doing what it's doing?

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't have it both ways.
 
Mycroft said:
All over the country...Obamacare insurance premiums will be increasing next year. Add to that the increase in the cost of health care, itself...and we are in for a double whammy.

As the guy said..."What's the point of insurance if I'm paying all this money out of pocket anyway?"
Click to expand...

For the first time in our country's history, I believe, if a person has a full service insurance policy, it is quite possible that the insured will pay more for health care than the insurance co. will on that policy. For a $10,000 year, the insured may well pay over $5,000. And the ins. co. gets record breaking premiums for that. (The ins. cos. aren't necessarily making more profits, though; a LOT of sickly people are signing up and turning in massive claims.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom