• 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!

75% Increase in Health Insurance

American said:
Oh yeah, it would be so cheap and all. :roll:
Click to expand...

It would be less expensive than Obamacare, since the huge insurance company profits would be removed from the system.

Then the providers would be paid certain amounts, according to contracts, like Medicare does it.

Health care is costly, no matter how you handle it, though.

I think a big federal and state push for a healthy lifestyle would help a lot. Advertising works. America has a lot of people who are obese, don't exercise or walk, have diabetes type 2 (which is caused by lifestyle). If we could get those problems lessened, health care costs would go down a LOT. But with half the country calling the First Lady names for promoting healthy eating, protesting school lunches that don't have fried foods, and making fun of the Prez eating arugula, well, it doesn't look promising for getting America healthier and health care costs down a lot.
 
Chomsky said:
I think you missed his point.

He's claiming the subsidy itself is the income redistribution, since it's taking tax money and is giving it to the less fortunate in the form of an insurance premium subsidy.

While I don't fully agree with his point, I can see where he's coming from (of sorts).
Click to expand...

I don't think he's right about that, since the people who get subsidies are taxpayers, too. You don't get a subsidy if you're poor. That's what Medicaid is for.

It's only redistribution if you take money from one group and give it to the other. If everyone contributes to the $ given, then it's not being redistributed, really. Although those that make more have higher taxes, so in that sense they contribute more. But the country has a progressive tax system, and that's not considered redistribution. 5% to someone who has only $40,000 gross to support a family means a lot more to that person than it does to someone who earns $100,000 to support a family, where 5% would be part of his expendable income (unless he's overextended himself). This is why it's 10% for one with $25k, 15% for one with $24k, and 19% for one with $80k. (Apparently, when you get to the level of several billion, your tax bill is zero, if you're smart....according to Trump.)
 
JumpinJack said:
I don't think he's right about that, since the people who get subsidies are taxpayers, too. You don't get a subsidy if you're poor. That's what Medicaid is for.

It's only redistribution if you take money from one group and give it to the other. If everyone contributes to the $ given, then it's not being redistributed, really.
Click to expand...

If you get more out than you put in, then yes, it's being redistributed to you.
 
AlbqOwl said:
At the risk of sounding like I'm 'sucking up', it is such a pleasure discussing these things with you Chomsky. I think I'm in love, in a platonic sort of way. :)

I certainly think your perspective needs to be included in the debate and deserves serious consideration even though I have not been convinced that single payer would not put more power in the hands of government than I am willing for government to have.

But my philosophy boiled down to the most basic and simple concepts is:

1. We Americans manage to find the money to maintain our cars, our homes, our precious possessions that insurance does not cover and we pay out of pocket. Certainly most Americans can find the money to pay up front for a doctor's visit, a vaccination, or to get a sore throat or a rash diagnosed. Back when all health care was private the usual deductible for all health care on an insurance policy was $200 (would be more now) which means in most years people never used their insurance at all just as is the case with homeowner's insurance or auto insurance. That allowed insurance premiums to remain low so that most people could afford them. And society took care of the indigent just as they do now.

2. Tort reform to get the lawyers out of the process except in cases of gross negligence.

3. Insurance coverage would be based on a regional average of a reasonably healthy population; no monopolies of any kind; and people would own their insurance policy which would go with them when they left a job.

4. States could set up assigned risk exchanges for hard to insure people--people with costly pre existing conditions, etc.--just as they do now for high risk workers compensation, general liability, E & O, etc.--to make insurance more affordable for such people and very affordable for the healthy.

5. The federal government could maintain a catastrophic policy umbrella that people could buy at a reasonable cost just as they can do for flood insurance or earthquake insurance now.

This I think would solve almost all problems, would get the federal government out of the process except for areas of anti trust issues or catastrophic coverages, and we would again have a user friendly healthcare system that was the standard for the world. And we would have doctors and other healthcare professionals wanting to be in it again instead of most trying to figure out how they can get out of it.
Click to expand...

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Very well stated! :thumbs: And for the record, most of the people on DP think Chomsky is really a nice guy, including me! He's always a gentleman, and he has a sense of humor, too, so what's not to like? He'll probably be embarrassed. but this is for him. :kissy:
 
MaggieD said:
My cousin just called me. She and her husband, self-employed, just got their new BCBS health insurance premium for the two of them. Illinois, by the way. It went from $1400 for the two of them to $2400 a month. $10,000 deductible PPO. Unbelievable.

Is this the November surprise??
Click to expand...
Here were my AETNA QPOS Rates for 2013. Now HIGHER, but I'm out.

The Self-insured overpay the most.
2013 rates.
Yes there are/were MONTHLY.
Kinda ironic watching people complain about having their rates 'double' to 700 or 1000 now.

Health Plans | Aetna (link gone but I posted this here app a year ago).

These rates are effective
October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013

Greater New York*
Individual - - - $2,224
Parent/Child(ren) $4,115
Parent/Child(ren) with dependent up to age 30 $4,238
Husband/Wife $4,448
Family $6,895
Family with dependent up to age 30 $7,102

Binghamton/Syracuse**
Individual - - - - $2,002
Parent/Child(ren) $3,703
Parent/Child(ren) with dependent up to age 30 $3,814
Husband/Wife $4,003
Family $6,205
Family with dependent up to age 30 $6,391​

Were/Are there ANY family in upstate NY/Binghamton and Syracuse that can afford those rates?
Individual is probably 2500 now.

Does anyone think 'Trump Care' will be cheaper?
Does anyone know any GOP Care Plan that will be?
Or is it: throw them off insurance and to the predatory Ins cos?

The fact is if we all want "no Pre-existing" it's EXPENSIVE because adding sick people to the pool raises rates.
In Obamacare, the rates were at least Partially subsidized by general Taxes like Cap Gains.

And as Chomsky said, we need to get costs under control.
Of course, this is a Capitalist society where Doctors, Hospitals, and Drug/EpiPen cos (and other Rapists) can charge what the market will bear.
And if you're sick, you will Bear ALOT.

Healthcare just doesn't lend itself to competition.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Healthcare just doesn't lend itself to competition.
Click to expand...

It would if you didn't separate the customer from the cost.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Very well stated! :thumbs: And for the record, most of the people on DP think Chomsky is really a nice guy, including me! He's always a gentleman, and he has a sense of humor, too, so what's not to like? He'll probably be embarrassed. but this is for him. :kissy:
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't know him quite that well yet so I'll just keep it to a friend crush for now. But I agree. It is so refreshing to find somebody who will actually argue a concept in opposition and do so in a civil, friendly, and non insulting manner. I sure wish our elected leaders would take lessons.
 
radcen said:
What era are we talking about when we say "back then"?
Click to expand...

1950's and 60's before Medicare and Medicaid was signed into law. The full effect would not begin to be terribly apparent until years later, however. In the early 1970's you could still stay overnight in the hospital for $50.
 
JumpinJack said:
It would be less expensive than Obamacare, since the huge insurance company profits would be removed from the system.

Then the providers would be paid certain amounts, according to contracts, like Medicare does it.

Health care is costly, no matter how you handle it, though.

I think a big federal and state push for a healthy lifestyle would help a lot. Advertising works. America has a lot of people who are obese, don't exercise or walk, have diabetes type 2 (which is caused by lifestyle). If we could get those problems lessened, health care costs would go down a LOT. But with half the country calling the First Lady names for promoting healthy eating, protesting school lunches that don't have fried foods, and making fun of the Prez eating arugula, well, it doesn't look promising for getting America healthier and health care costs down a lot.
Click to expand...

You'd get your surgeries done with a pocket knife at Walmart discount prices. :lol:
 
AlbqOwl said:
At the risk of sounding like I'm 'sucking up', it is such a pleasure discussing these things with you Chomsky. I think I'm in love, in a platonic sort of way. :)
Click to expand...
I think I'm in love with Chomsky, too. :2razz: He is easy to talk to, and has an open mind, which is so refreshing.
 
JumpinJack said:
I don't think he's right about that, since the people who get subsidies are taxpayers, too. You don't get a subsidy if you're poor. That's what Medicaid is for.

It's only redistribution if you take money from one group and give it to the other. If everyone contributes to the $ given, then it's not being redistributed, really. Although those that make more have higher taxes, so in that sense they contribute more. But the country has a progressive tax system, and that's not considered redistribution. 5% to someone who has only $40,000 gross to support a family means a lot more to that person than it does to someone who earns $100,000 to support a family, where 5% would be part of his expendable income (unless he's overextended himself). This is why it's 10% for one with $25k, 15% for one with $24k, and 19% for one with $80k. (Apparently, when you get to the level of several billion, your tax bill is zero, if you're smart....according to Trump.)
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm with you on this!

But that doesn't mean I can't see what the other guy's train of thought was. ;)

And I'll be straight-up: I know a lot of people that think in exactly that same manner. He's not alone.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes, but I'm confused. Is there a choice?
Click to expand...

Yea. You can get it straight from the insurance company or through the exchange. There are companies that offer insurance in areas that aren't on the exchanges. Cause if they aren't on the exchanges I believe that they aren't forced to insure people with preexisting conditions. I was only asking out of curiosity.
 
MaggieD said:
My cousin just called me. She and her husband, self-employed, just got their new BCBS health insurance premium for the two of them. Illinois, by the way. It went from $1400 for the two of them to $2400 a month. $10,000 deductible PPO. Unbelievable.

Is this the November surprise??
Click to expand...
November surprise? no What does this have to do with Trump or Hilary or even Obama for that matter.

Government tried to regulate BUSINESS costs and spread coverage, it limited profits for medical companies for a while. Fast forward two years of medical company lawyers and bean counters sitting in rooms and they figured out ways to drive up profits again, legally driving up costs. We are always going to lose or find it difficult when insurance, medical device and pharmaceutical companies are driven mostly by gross profit.
 
JumpinJack said:
I don't think it's that. People who get subsidies pay taxes, too.

If you look at it that way, then it's true that Trump's getting away with paying no taxes is "income redistribution" from us working Americans who pay taxes, redistributing to Trump and those like him. Which is worse, since average working Americans have a lot less money than he does.
Click to expand...

And the person buying non subsidized Obamacare is paying taxes too. It is a wealth transfer from the middle class non subsidized to subsidized.
 
LaylaWindu said:
November surprise? no What does this have to do with Trump or Hilary or even Obama for that matter.

Government tried to regulate BUSINESS costs and spread coverage, it limited profits for medical companies for a while. Fast forward two years of medical company lawyers and bean counters sitting in rooms and they figured out ways to drive up profits again, legally driving up costs. We are always going to lose or find it difficult when insurance, medical device and pharmaceutical companies are driven mostly by gross profit.
Click to expand...

The insurance company rate increases have to be approved. What Administration is approving them?
 
Chomsky said:
Argh!

I'd like universal healthcare, but ObamaCare is *not* the way to go. :doh

But the deal here, is: No matter what the system, we've got to get healthcare costs under control; there's no other way.
Click to expand...

And how do we do that?
 
Chomsky said:
You're missing the point here

*Everything* is too expensive.

American healthcare is too expensive for the results obtained, and if it doesn't get under control our results are not going to get better.

But since you mentioned it, MedicAid is a single-payer system that is doing cost containment - and that's a good thing IMO.
Click to expand...

Their "cost containment" amounts to extremely low reimbursement rates for services rendered. Which is why fewer and fewer doctors accept MedicAid. And that's the devil in the details. The only way "single payer" systems can function is through rationing, and low reimbursement rates. Which results in, substandard health care. Is that what you are advocating?
 
MaggieD said:
The insurance company rate increases have to be approved. What Administration is approving them?
Click to expand...

Why do they have to be "approved"? All they have to do is be legal and not violate the regulations. Insurance as always gone up my whole life, what administration(s) "approved" those prices?
 
MaggieD said:
It is my understanding state insurance commissions must approve the rate hikes which must be substantiated by rise in cost and, more importantly, under-estimating healthy enrollees.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/01/will-these-big-obamacare-rates-get-approved.html
Click to expand...

Hence me saying as long as its legal and doesn't violate the regulations. Are you suggesting that they should just reject anything they want even if there's no justification to do it? If there's no rule breaking what do you suggest they base their rejection on, legally? Also you didn't answer, since insurance has always gone up my whole life what administration(s) "approved" those prices?

[FONT=&quot]Insurers now have more extensive data on which to base their rate submissions.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Like I said, 2 years or lawyers and bean counters figuring out the system to drive profits back up IE customer costs.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Hence me saying as long as its legal and doesn't violate the regulations. Are you suggesting that they should just reject anything they want even if there's no justification to do it? If there's no rule breaking what do you suggest they base their rejection on, legally? Also you didn't answer, since insurance has always gone up my whole life what administration(s) "approved" those prices?
Click to expand...

What I am suggesting is that Obamacare, in its current form, is a failure. Obama put the program in place. Obama's administration takes the blame.
 
MaggieD said:
What I am suggesting is that Obamacare, in its current form, is a failure. Obama put the program in place. Obama's administration takes the blame.
Click to expand...

So basically you won't answer my questions or give a suggestion on what should/could be done. You'll just finger point at the scapegoat goat when at the very worse the medical company shares only 50% of the blame (but in reality even more) and insurance has been going up my whole life before Obama care even existed? Got it, its views like yours that are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution. Healthcare and raising costs (gross profit greed) and poor coverage has been an issue my whole life . . focusing on just obamacare when this isn't a new problem is just silly. Did you blame all the other administrations before this one? Because they all deserve some blame. DO you also blame the gross profit drive of the medical companies? Because they are the larger part of the problem.
 
LaylaWindu said:
November surprise? no What does this have to do with Trump or Hilary or even Obama for that matter.

Government tried to regulate BUSINESS costs and spread coverage, it limited profits for medical companies for a while. Fast forward two years of medical company lawyers and bean counters sitting in rooms and they figured out ways to drive up profits again, legally driving up costs. We are always going to lose or find it difficult when insurance, medical device and pharmaceutical companies are driven mostly by gross profit.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution so an individual doesn't lose? , "We are always going to lose or find it difficult when insurance, medical device and pharmaceutical companies are driven mostly by gross profit."

Explain how if the ACA exchanges rely on "young healthy" people to sign up, it was a good idea to allow young people stay on their parents health insurance till 26 years old?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom