View Poll Results: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, that's exactly what they're doing.

    2 28.57%
  • No, this has nothing to do with the insurance companies, they just got in the way

    5 71.43%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 114

Thread: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    I'd be interested in reading this data point...care to provide a source?


    Those who don't already have insurance theoretically are being brought into the system based on receiving a subsidy. But where does the revenue for the subsidy come from...the general fund? And where exactly does that come from? It would seem that we are trading increased premiums for increased tax burden(ultimately). And as to the 'young people gaming the system' please explain how the current $95 annual (first year) threat is going to change their 'game'. Isn't the 'fine/tax' merely a reduction in tax return (obviously depending on income)? And since these 'young people' have little income (based on often repeated rhetoric) where will this 'tax return deduction' come from?
    Now you're complaining that the mandate is too lenient ? I thought you didn't like it? Now you want it to be stronger? Do you see how twisted your logic has become? Think of it this way, the more people enrolled in Health insurance the less each of us will pay. Surely you can understand why that is?

  2. #92
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Now you're complaining that the mandate is too lenient ? I thought you didn't like it? Now you want it to be stronger? Do you see how twisted your logic has become?
    NICE strawman...!

    Since you failed to respond to the initial request here let me help you out:

    The Center for American Progress Action Fund has updated a 2005 analysis by Kenneth Thorpe for Families USA and found that, on average, 8 percent of families’ 2009 health care premiums—approximately $1,100 a year—is due to our broken system that fails to cover the uninsured.
    The Cost Shift from the Uninsured | Center for American Progress Action Fund

    It would appear that your previous 20-25% number was off by...what a factor of 3...nice try...
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    NICE strawman...!

    Since you failed to respond to the initial request here let me help you out:


    The Cost Shift from the Uninsured | Center for American Progress Action Fund

    It would appear that your previous 20-25% number was off by...what a factor of 3...nice try...
    That number is quite old but $42 billion a year in higher premiums is OK with you I guess. You must enjoy paying for those gang bangers gunshot wounds. We all pay regardless and a least the insurers take is capped under the law. Do you like it that one CEO was paid $44 million last year and didn't treat a single patient?

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    That number is quite old but $42 billion a year in higher premiums is OK with you I guess. You must enjoy paying for those gang bangers gunshot wounds. We all pay regardless and a least the insurers take is capped under the law. Do you like it that one CEO was paid $44 million last year and didn't treat a single patient?
    Persistent strawman aside, do you really believe 'gangbangers' are going to comply with PPACA?...REALLY?

    ps: I presented a source that contradicted YOUR assertion. Perhaps instead of criticizing mine you should provide one of you own that supports YOUR assertion...or just stipulate you were embellishing your point by inflating the percentage...
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Persistent strawman aside, do you really believe 'gangbangers' are going to comply with PPACA?...REALLY?

    ps: I presented a source that contradicted YOUR assertion. Perhaps instead of criticizing mine you should provide one of you own that supports YOUR assertion...or just stipulate you were embellishing your point by inflating the percentage...
    You stated you didn't want to pay extra for "deadbeats". I proved that you already do and will be in the future without the AHC act.
    How much extra do you figure you'll be paying for those subsidies you were whining about? Don't worry about the mandate it will get enforced.
    Mass. has 98.1% participation in its own version of AHC. Here's a few facts you might not know about it.

    439,000 more Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage than did before reform.
    Massachusetts has the highest rate of insurance in the country with 98.1 percent of residents insured.
    There has been no evidence of subsidized coverage “crowding out” employer-sponsored insurance, and employer offer rates have grown from 70 percent to 77 percent since implementation of reform.
    Public support for Massachusetts health reform has remained strong with two out of three adults supporting reform.
    Most employers believe health reform has been good for Massachusetts and 88 percent of Massachusetts physicians believe reform improved, or did not affect, care or quality of care.
    https://www.mahealthconnector.org/po...theResults.pdf
    Last edited by iguanaman; 09-23-13 at 12:43 AM.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
    400% of the poverty line... which I believe makes it about $55k single person.

    The difference is between a 'per use' basis that we pay now, and paying someone's premiums, no matter if the receive heath care or not. In addition, no new facilities as access points have been added, so any number of people will continue to use the ER as their access point. That is where the costs are more than what a regular doctor's appointment would run. If a person can get an appointment, appointment backlogs around here are about 4 weeks, and that's when you actually have something wrong with you.

    People are not going to suddenly start getting all healthy because they have insurance. A poor nutritional diet will still cause any number of problems, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

    There were many ways to address health care, and this is likely the worst choice that could have been made.
    Insurance is just a method of payment. An expansion of Medicaid would have served the same purpose
    Sorry - my bad - here's a more accurate presentation of eligibility for the subsidies:

    Now, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty level for a family of two is currently $14,570.

    That means a husband and wife with no children who earn up to $58,280 (400 percent of the poverty level) would be eligible for federal health insurance subsidies.

    For a family of three mom, dad and one child the poverty level is $18,310. So, a family of this size would be able to earn up to $73,240 and still be on the federal health-insurance dole.

    For a family of four mom, dad and two children the poverty level is $22,050, and the upper income for getting federal health insurance subsidies would be $88,200.

    For a family the size of the Brady Bunch mom, dad and six children the poverty level is $37,010, and the upper income for getting health insurance subsidies would be $148,040.

    For a family the size of the one Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., grew up in two parents and nine children the poverty level is $48,230, and the cutoff point for federal insurance subsidies would be $192,920.


    Really, now that's not bad.

    You complain about the backlog - let me tell you, having to wait on a backlog of four lousy weeks is a heck of a lot better than having zero access at all. And if there's so many more people that doctors' offices are overloaded, well, there's this little thing called "market forces" - things will be rough and disorderly in the beginning (as is the case when ANY major change is made to a system), but more will open up as time goes on. No, people will not become magically healthy - it will take at least a decade for the improvement to really show...at which point our national life expectancy might start catching up to those of other nations that have had universal health care for over a half century.

    As as far as this "likely being the worst choice", tell that to the fifty million or so - including my oldest son and my brother-in-law - who (until October 1st) couldn't get health insurance if they tried thanks to their preexisting conditions. And please don't tell me they can go the 'per use' route - we're not millionaires, that they can afford what they need out of pocket.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    was he drafted?
    No. He turned 18 in 2002. Since he was in college, TRICARE covered him until he was 22, but after then he was on his own - with his preexisting condition, of course.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    How much extra do you figure you'll be paying for those subsidies you were whining about?
    Too much!
    Don't worry about the mandate it will get enforced.
    So you DO believe that 'gangbangers' will participate in PPACA...? REALLY?

    Mass. has 98.1% participation in its own version of AHC. Here's a few facts you might not know about it.
    Suddenly yet ANOTHER STRAWMAN appears...GREAT for Massachusetts!...but I don't live there (nor do you) so what does it matter?

    ps: How's that 'cost shifting' source coming?
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  9. #99
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    ...As as far as this "likely being the worst choice", tell that to the fifty million or so - including my oldest son and my brother-in-law - who (until October 1st) couldn't get health insurance if they tried thanks to their preexisting conditions. And please don't tell me they can go the 'per use' route - we're not millionaires, that they can afford what they need out of pocket.
    But see that's just not entirely true. 33 States had/have high risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions prior to PPACA. There is typically some wait period prior to eligibility but coverage IS AVAILIBLE. I know this to be fact as it is how my wife got insured.
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  10. #100
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    the latter, it isn't even a contest
    Really? That's the easy answer...for those who haven't really thought things through.

    Are you a business owner? If so, if your people don't have health insurance, what happens to them when they get sick? They can't work - you don't dare let them work. What does that do to your bottom line since you've got to scramble for other people who may or may not have the training the sick guy had? Sure, it's nothing you can't work through - but it can and often does cost you in terms of dollars and productivity (especially if the sick employee was one of your most trusted, or one of your leaders).

    And then there's the little fact that half of all bankruptcies in America are due at least in part to health care costs. Do you think it would help your business if, say, four-fifths of those bankruptcies went away? Because in Canada, only 10% of bankruptcies are associated with health care in any way.

    And let's not forget what happens to those who lose their jobs due to sickness - all too often they and their families become dependent upon the state - YOU, the taxpayer - in order to keep fed, clothed, and housed...and so they become a further burden on the taxpayer...especially since they're no longer making money to spend in the local economy. And if they become homeless, what does that do to the crime rate? And what does an increased crime rate do to local businesses (and the insurance they pay)? And when there's more crime, guess what - YOU, the taxpayer is on the hook to pay yet more for police, firefighters, courts, and prisons...and with increased crime comes less customers to your business...and you make less money...and things spiral downhill.

    And ALL this is in addition to the loss of productivity of the breadwinner - and the taxes that he or she would normally pay.

    Of course, this doesn't happen because of only one or two people losing their jobs and their homes...but when it adds up to the thousands as it can in larger cities, this really is what happens.

    In other words, all the above is why it DOES cost less to provide health insurance for everyone than it does to pay for the consequences of people not having health insurance. This is also why the rest of the first-world democracies are paying about HALF what we're already paying in taxpayer dollar for health care for our citizens.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 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
  •