• 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!

Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143:248]

Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

I really believe that more than just the "progressives" would be loath to deny someone treatment for an illness or accident because they didn't have the foresight to have insurance.

What is your solution this problem?

Educate people, and then let them make their own choices. Sure, it sucks to see people make bad choices and suffer the consequences. We can't simply take away the consequences for them. It seems as if you want to take away their choices. I don't think that creates a better society.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

No, as the underlying article says, it's a response to businesses desire to keep costs down. I quoted where it says that.

No ****, and those are circumstances directly dependent on ACA style legislation. I suggest researching the history of these plans, how they evolved, and how that was in direct response to such legislation. This is because the legislation naturally made the field less profitable and drove cost cutting measures



It doesn't. That premise has nothing to do with ACA. It has to do with the fact that the consumer doesn't know what health care they are going to need.

The entire article is about how the ACA makes a faulty assumption in that the consumer wiill be able to choose the best healthcare plan.

from the article: <<<AP reported: “The new marketplaces are supposed to work like an Amazon.com for health insurance, providing consumers with one-stop shopping for competitively priced coverage.” As she has before, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius argued that “more competition will drive down costs and exchanges will give individuals and small businesses the same purchasing power big businesses have today.”>>>

Again, that has nothing to do with ACA. ACA did not render consumers incompetent.

from a page back when you originally brought this up

I'm not sure about that, but that is rather irrelevant to the fact that ACA is built on a model that depends on the avg consumer buying a plan he is just ill prepared to properly access

I'm not sure pointing to poor planning and implementation serve as the best defense here

regardless if the individual is poorly prepared to access insurance plans in general, especially in the light that similar legislation has lead to further complexity in other markets, the issue is still that the ACA is reliant on the complete opposite happening

That would clearly be a problem with the legislation, because it directly ignores such realities and how it will further exacerbate them.



Wrong again. Tiered plans started in Mass before ACA

Why be intentionally dishonest? I clearly wrote "ACA style Legislation". And it's well known Mass health reforms under Romney served as the template for the ACA and were initiated long before it. Hence looking at it as an experiment in such legislation being put into practical use


Here's another article about tiered insurance plans. It's from 2008

What purpose are you hoping to achieve by being so blatantly dishonest here? Again, I wrote "ACA style legislation". Second, The mass health care reform was initiated in 2006
 
Last edited:
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

No ****, and those are circumstances directly dependent on ACA style legislation. I suggest researching the history of these plans, how they evolved, and how that was in direct response to such legislation. This is because the legislation naturally made the field less profitable and drove cost cutting measures

Wrong. The article says nothing about it being caused by ACA. Please quote where the article says tiered plans were started because of ACA


The entire article is about how the ACA makes a faulty assumption in that the consumer wiill be able to choose the best healthcare plan.

from the article: <<<AP reported: “The new marketplaces are supposed to work like an Amazon.com for health insurance, providing consumers with one-stop shopping for competitively priced coverage.” As she has before, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius argued that “more competition will drive down costs and exchanges will give individuals and small businesses the same purchasing power big businesses have today.”>>>

The article does not say that ACA made it harder for consumers to shop for insurance. Please quote where the article says tiered plans were started because of ACA


from a page back when you originally brought this up


regardless if the individual is poorly prepared to access insurance plans in general, especially in the light that similar legislation has lead to further complexity in other markets, the issue is still that the ACA is reliant on the complete opposite happening

That would clearly be a problem with the legislation, because it directly ignores such realities and how it will further exacerbate them.

Again, the complexity of tiered plans has nothing to do with ACA and ACA does not exacerbate that complexity. If you think so, please quote where the article says tiered plans were started because of ACA

Why be intentionally dishonest? I clearly wrote "ACA style Legislation". And it's well known Mass health reforms under Romney served as the template for the ACA and were initiated long before it. Hence looking at it as an experiment in such legislation being put into practical use

Another lie. In several instances, including this latest response of yours, you blame "ACA" not "ACA style legislation"
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

I really believe that more than just the "progressives" would be loath to deny someone treatment for an illness or accident because they didn't have the foresight to have insurance.

This is a great point. As a libertarian, I can't even bring myself to have emergency rooms turn people away.

What is your solution this problem?

For starters, the actual Republican plan from 1993, minus the mandate, would be good. The ACA is based on it, but that's like movies that are "based on a true story." There's a lot of embellishment. Likewise, the Democrats added a lot of things that Republicans would never have supported. Such as mandates for maternity care, no lifetime limits, etc., that push up the cost of insurance. The Republican plan would have just made insurance more affordable through the use of subsidies, and people could choose whatever they wanted. That is the primary flaw with the law, is that the Democrats are trying to force people to buy more than they want, and primarily for political purposes, not medical.

Actually though, I'd prefer a single-payer, catastrophic only system. Individuals would be responsible for all routine medical costs, while the government would cover the things that don't actually happen to everyone.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

I don't really think you lost track of it, because I don't think you're stupid.



That's still the argument. It hasn't been dropped. If you have a right to health care, then someone must provide it for you.

The slave is the one who is forced to provide a service for you. It's not that difficult a concept.
You are back to the same hole again, name these slaves.

How is a medical worker who is paid by an insurance provider a "slave"?
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

This to me, with all due respect Ditto is the deflection problem that permeates the current administration, and progressive argument we have today.

To think that it is up to the minority party to come up with a solution to a massive problem that was 100% of the majority party's making, is akin to me to throwing your hands in the air, after walking into a room and kicking all the domino's over, and saying that it is up to others to figure out how to fix it, and save their asses.

No, it is up to those who broke it, and they now own it lock, stock, and barrel.

The problems are the increasing cost of health care and the numbers of uninsured. This is a problem that has existed for some time, with no one addressing it.

The Democrats tried to address the problem, and came up with a patchwork fix that addresses some of it. It is a compromise attesting to the fact that politics is the art of the possible. Obamacare is what was possible to pass. It partially addresses the issue of the uninsured, but doesn't address the issue of cost. There is a lot of work to do before we really have a health care system that is worthy of a wealthy nation in the 21st. century.

but, my point was this, regarding the individual mandate: If we, as a society, are willing to allow the accident victim, or the person with a serious illness, to either get well or die on his own, then we have no right to insist that anyone have insurance. If, on the other hand, we treat that illness or injury at our expense, then we have every right to insist that everyone have insurance or pay a tax to pay for the cost of the uninsured. It's a matter of individual responsibility.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Educate people, and then let them make their own choices. Sure, it sucks to see people make bad choices and suffer the consequences. We can't simply take away the consequences for them. It seems as if you want to take away their choices. I don't think that creates a better society.

How are you going to convince the rest of society to allow people to accept the consequences of not having health insurance? You say we can't take away the consequences, and that's partially true, but we can and do treat accident victims and people with serious diseases even when they can't pay. Allowing them to accept the consequences would mean that the paramedics don't come and take them away from the accident scene and try to keep them alive. It would mean we just leave them to their own devices, just as happens in some of the third world nations.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

This is a great point. As a libertarian, I can't even bring myself to have emergency rooms turn people away.



For starters, the actual Republican plan from 1993, minus the mandate, would be good. The ACA is based on it, but that's like movies that are "based on a true story." There's a lot of embellishment. Likewise, the Democrats added a lot of things that Republicans would never have supported. Such as mandates for maternity care, no lifetime limits, etc., that push up the cost of insurance. The Republican plan would have just made insurance more affordable through the use of subsidies, and people could choose whatever they wanted. That is the primary flaw with the law, is that the Democrats are trying to force people to buy more than they want, and primarily for political purposes, not medical.

Actually though, I'd prefer a single-payer, catastrophic only system. Individuals would be responsible for all routine medical costs, while the government would cover the things that don't actually happen to everyone.

That's exactly the sort of system we need in order to control costs.
But, politics being the art of the possible, we'll likely not see it any time soon.

Right wing: Single payer? Socialism!
Left wing: Pay for our own doctor's visits? You must hate the poor!

Try to get the two sides together somehow.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

but, my point was this, regarding the individual mandate: If we, as a society, are willing to allow the accident victim, or the person with a serious illness, to either get well or die on his own, then we have no right to insist that anyone have insurance. If, on the other hand, we treat that illness or injury at our expense, then we have every right to insist that everyone have insurance or pay a tax to pay for the cost of the uninsured. It's a matter of individual responsibility.

It sounds to me like you are saying it's a matter of social responsibility...not individual responsibility. What do we, as a society, want to do...leave it up to the individual...or make the individual pay whether they want to or not.

If it were a matter of individual responsibility, there would be no question.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

It also seems to me that you can't start something based on a social responsibility and then when that creates problems, start limiting individuals' choices too. I acknowledge the problems caused by uncompensated care, but I prefer that problem to the problems ACA creates.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

You are back to the same hole again, name these slaves.

How is a medical worker who is paid by an insurance provider a "slave"?

The medical worker is not the one whose resources you claim to have a right to, not directly any way.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

That's still the argument. It hasn't been dropped. If you have a right to health care, then someone must provide it for you.
The slave is the one who is forced to provide a service for you.
It's not that difficult a concept.
You are back to the same hole again, name these slaves.

How is a medical worker who is paid by an insurance provider a "slave"?
The medical worker is not the one whose resources you claim to have a right to, not directly any way.
That contradicts your previous claim that the medical provider is the slave.

As I said, you keep losing track of your argument.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

How are you going to convince the rest of society to allow people to accept the consequences of not having health insurance? You say we can't take away the consequences, and that's partially true, but we can and do treat accident victims and people with serious diseases even when they can't pay. Allowing them to accept the consequences would mean that the paramedics don't come and take them away from the accident scene and try to keep them alive. It would mean we just leave them to their own devices, just as happens in some of the third world nations.

You seem to be assuming that without government involvement people with serious illnesses or accident victims would die on the streets. This appears to to rule out the idea that people cannot help each other w=ithout government involvement.

The fact is that Americans did well for a couple of centuries without government involvement in health care and now that they are involved does anyone still believe that it will be an improvement? The fact is that when there was a health crisis, such as polio or any other natural disaster, people worked together, Certainly there was temporary government involvement but only in extreme cases. Now there are people who are becoming dependent on the government for all their needs, and computer glitches will be the least of the nation's worries.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

And so the debate is settled. Health care for everybody is evil. Just ask any Canadian who knows all about death panels that kill our grannies and lineups to see a doctor that stretch a mile on a good day. America wouldn't want that, especially if it was given to them by one of 'those' people.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

The problems are the increasing cost of health care and the numbers of uninsured. This is a problem that has existed for some time, with no one addressing it.

You'll excuse me if I hear that as .... Blah, blah, blah! at this point...This meme is drilled constantly by the MSM...It's old.

The Democrats tried to address the problem, and came up with a patchwork fix that addresses some of it. It is a compromise attesting to the fact that politics is the art of the possible. Obamacare is what was possible to pass.

Think about that....It was only possible by bribing a few members of a virtual super majority in congress, then shoved through on a party line vote in the middle of the night without even reading, much less understanding what they were voting for. Is that the way we do things now?

It partially addresses the issue of the uninsured, but doesn't address the issue of cost. There is a lot of work to do before we really have a health care system that is worthy of a wealthy nation in the 21st. century.

You want to see real anger? shove through single payer. The moment people open that paycheck and realize that $650 per week take home is now going to be $400 so that demo's achieved in conning them into a socialized medicine scheme that started with O-care, and there will be unrest.

but, my point was this, regarding the individual mandate: If we, as a society, are willing to allow the accident victim, or the person with a serious illness, to either get well or die on his own, then we have no right to insist that anyone have insurance. If, on the other hand, we treat that illness or injury at our expense, then we have every right to insist that everyone have insurance or pay a tax to pay for the cost of the uninsured. It's a matter of individual responsibility.

This bill didn't achieve anything of the sort....There will STILL be 30 million uninsured, regardless of the attempt to use a governmental heavy hand....There were other ways much less intrusive, but progressives rarely see anything other than force to be able to pass their crap, because without it, it simply wouldn't be tolerated.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

And so the debate is settled. Health care for everybody is evil. Just ask any Canadian who knows all about death panels that kill our grannies and lineups to see a doctor that stretch a mile on a good day. America wouldn't want that, especially if it was given to them by one of 'those' people.

It's funny you should mention Canadian death panels...because I just saw this article from Slate:

Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.

In other words: Canada has death panels.

Canada has death panels, and that’s a good thing.

Now, the overall thrust of the article is that, for Canada, death panels are a good thing and it is justified by the following:

In Canada, with our single-payer health care system, Rasouli’s situation has a very public bottom line: Should taxpayers foot the bill for his family’s indefinite goodbye?

This, as I see it, is one of the consequences of your government health care.

Fortunately, in the US...at least right now...we don't have your style of government health care so we don't have to ask that question. Every individual family member has the right to make their own decision.

THAT is but one reason for the US to reject your government health care and I hope to god we never find ourselves in the position where we feel the need to ask that question.
 
Last edited:
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Wrong. The article says nothing about it being caused by ACA. Please quote where the article says tiered plans were started because of ACA

I just literally explained this to you and I feel no need to address the same points over and over again

from above:
Why be intentionally dishonest? I clearly wrote "ACA style Legislation". And it's well known Mass health reforms under Romney served as the template for the ACA and were initiated long before it. Hence looking at it as an experiment in such legislation being put into practical use
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

This is a great point. As a libertarian, I can't even bring myself to have emergency rooms turn people away.



For starters, the actual Republican plan from 1993, minus the mandate, would be good. The ACA is based on it, but that's like movies that are "based on a true story." There's a lot of embellishment. Likewise, the Democrats added a lot of things that Republicans would never have supported. Such as mandates for maternity care, no lifetime limits, etc., that push up the cost of insurance. The Republican plan would have just made insurance more affordable through the use of subsidies, and people could choose whatever they wanted. That is the primary flaw with the law, is that the Democrats are trying to force people to buy more than they want, and primarily for political purposes, not medical.

Actually though, I'd prefer a single-payer, catastrophic only system. Individuals would be responsible for all routine medical costs, while the government would cover the things that don't actually happen to everyone.

if it's in anyway structure like the mass plan or ACA, it isn't viable without the individual mandate
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

It's funny you should mention Canadian death panels...because I just saw this article from Slate:



Now, the overall thrust of the article is that, for Canada, death panels are a good thing and it is justified by the following:



This, as I see it, is one of the consequences of your government health care.

Fortunately, in the US...at least right now...we don't have your style of government health care so we don't have to ask that question. Every individual family member has the right to make their own decision.

THAT is but one reason for the US to reject your government health care and I hope to god we never find ourselves in the position where we feel the need to ask that question.



There is always the feel good story in Oregon where the woman with cancer who was on Oregon's state run universal health care received a letter from the state that passed on two bits of news: 1) Her cancer treatment would no longer be paid for and 2) Euthanasia was legal in Oregon and covered by her insurance.

So warm and fuzzy....
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

There is always the feel good story in Oregon where the woman with cancer who was on Oregon's state run universal health care received a letter from the state that passed on two bits of news: 1) Her cancer treatment would no longer be paid for and 2) Euthanasia was legal in Oregon and covered by her insurance.

So warm and fuzzy....

I used to live in Oregon and one of the reasons I don't live there anymore is because of their tendency to do things like that.

Unfortunately, I can't move out of the country if liberals succeed in doing that kind of thing on a national level.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

I just literally explained this to you and I feel no need to address the same points over and over again

from above:

IOW, you can't quote where the article says these tiered plans were a reaction to ACA. You have to "explain" (AKA lie) it.

Meanwhile, I posted a link that shows that insurance companies have been offering tiered plans since at least 2008
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

There is always the feel good story in Oregon where the woman with cancer who was on Oregon's state run universal health care received a letter from the state that passed on two bits of news: 1) Her cancer treatment would no longer be paid for and 2) Euthanasia was legal in Oregon and covered by her insurance.

So warm and fuzzy....

1) She is alive isn't she?

2) Euthanasia has never been legal in Oregon, you're confusing it with doctor assisted suicide which has stringent rules which make it difficult to qualify.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

You'll excuse me if I hear that as .... Blah, blah, blah! at this point...This meme is drilled constantly by the MSM...It's old.

It may be old, but it's true. The cost of health care has gone up so fast for so long that it's threatening to bankrupt us, and no one in Washington is addressing that fact.

and, we have the most expensive health care system in the world by far.

Think about that....It was only possible by bribing a few members of a virtual super majority in congress, then shoved through on a party line vote in the middle of the night without even reading, much less understanding what they were voting for. Is that the way we do things now?

Seems to be. The parties are unable or unwilling to work together on compromises. The contribution made by the Republicans in this debate was death panels and offing grandma, along with calling it "socialized medicine."

That's a pretty sorry situation, isn't it? Congress is dysfunctional.

You want to see real anger? shove through single payer. The moment people open that paycheck and realize that $650 per week take home is now going to be $400 so that demo's achieved in conning them into a socialized medicine scheme that started with O-care, and there will be unrest.

Oh, I think it is perfectly clear that single payer has a long uphill struggle in this country despite the fact that every other advanced nation in the world has it and all of them pay far less than we do. It's a battle between fact and ideology, with the latter coming out on top.


This bill didn't achieve anything of the sort....There will STILL be 30 million uninsured, regardless of the attempt to use a governmental heavy hand....There were other ways much less intrusive, but progressives rarely see anything other than force to be able to pass their crap, because without it, it simply wouldn't be tolerated.

It will decrease the numbers of uninsured and thus the cost of treating the uninsured. It won't reduce overall costs, which is what has to be addressed and soon.

A dysfunctional Congress, however, is not going to be able to address it.

No, costs will continue to increase, the government will pick up more and more of the tab, and the deficits will be blamed on the military (by the left) and by "entitlements" (by the right). But, a whole lot of our economic problems have their root in the cost of health care.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges | Fox News

so even with the dismal amount that were able to enroll that is even screwed up
so when are you liberal going to come to the inevitable conclusion this is not working it will never work and all your doing at this point is allowing your pride and your reluctance to admit failure get in the way of doing the right thing and that is repeal and replace. you rather see millions suffer so to keep from that realization that Obama care is a total unmitigated disaster
And you want to call the Tea Party terrorist and hostage takers?

Obama Care could become the biggest failure in the history of our country.
 
Re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Obama Care could become the biggest failure in the history of our country.

Bigger than the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, and the government shutdown?
 
Back
Top Bottom