• 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!

Ford shifting all U.S. small-car production to Mexico

VanceMack said:
Piece of cake. By regulation and law, no insurance company can drop a patient after they develop a condition. Anyone that did not have insurance when they developed the condition would be eligible for medicare/medicaid while paying a private insurance premium.

It is unreasonable and follish to demand insurance companies take on new clients with preexisting conditions...especially where the individual previously did not have insurance. Thats like driving your car without insurance, wrecking it, then going to Allstate and demanding they sign you up as a client and fix your already wrecked car. But the solutions are just not that hard to find.
Click to expand...

Thats sounds basically like free healthcare. Why buy insurance at all then?
 
jonny5 said:
Thats sounds basically like free healthcare. Why buy insurance at all then?
Click to expand...
Where did I say 'free'? "would be eligible for medicare/medicaid while paying a private insurance premium"
 
Greenbeard said:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...
It means Medicare/Medicaid would serve as their insurance provider but that they would pay for it as if it were a private insurance company. It means medicare and medicaid would take on the responsibility for pre-existing conditions and not another insurance company.
 
VanceMack said:
It means Medicare/Medicaid would serve as their insurance provider but that they would pay for it as if it were a private insurance company. It means medicare and medicaid would take on the responsibility for pre-existing conditions and not another insurance company.
Click to expand...

The private sector could already quote sick people unaffordable premiums pre-ACA. I'm not sure what having Medicare or Medicaid quote you an unaffordable premium instead solves.
 
Greenbeard said:
The private sector could already quote sick people unaffordable premiums pre-ACA. I'm not sure what having Medicare or Medicaid quote you an unaffordable premium instead solves.
Click to expand...
You are being silly and I believe intentionally obtuse. The discussion is how could this problem have been solved to help 12% of the population without destroying an entire industry and in the process creating what is proving to be an excessively expensive system which doesnt work and was built on lies just to get it passed.
 
VanceMack said:
You are being silly and I believe intentionally obtuse. The discussion is how could this problem have been solved to help 12% of the population without destroying an entire industry and in the process creating what is proving to be an excessively expensive system which doesnt work and was built on lies just to get it passed.
Click to expand...

I'm asking how it helps that portion of the population. We use an insurance model in the first place because most health spending is focused on a small portion of the population. And if you get sick, your costs are likely to quickly outstrip your means.

Your solution seems to be: charge the sick an actuarially appropriate premium. Well the private sector could already do that. The reason it didn't help those people is that those premiums were too high for them to pay themselves.
 
Greenbeard said:
I'm asking how it helps that portion of the population. We use an insurance model in the first place because most health spending is focused on a small portion of the population. And if you get sick, your costs are likely to quickly outstrip your means.

Your solution seems to be: charge the sick an actuarially appropriate premium. Well the private sector could already do that. The reason it didn't help those people is that those premiums were too high for them to pay themselves.
Click to expand...
Its quite simple. Take Individual A. Preexisting medical condition without coverage. Old system...couldnt get coverage or gets covered but has to pay out the ass. New system...CANNOT be dropped due to the condition if he already has coverage and applies for and recieves coverage under medicare medicaid but unlike a low/no income medicare medicaid recipient on disability, Individual A pays a premium like they would any other insurance company, but one that was affordable. His prexisting condition is backed by the government, not dumped on another private carrier.
 
VanceMack said:
...or gets covered but has to pay out the ass.
Click to expand...
...applies for and recieves coverage under medicare medicaid but unlike a low/no income medicare medicaid recipient on disability, Individual A pays a premium like they would any other insurance company, but one that was affordable.
Click to expand...

So back to my original question: under your system these people pay a "private insurance premium," except now a premium determined by the person's health status is mysteriously much lower. Are you just saying the premium is now being subsidized, whereas it wouldn't be in a private insurance plan? If so that's fine, but we could also just let people shop in the private sector and send the subsidy there. As is already being done in the exchanges.
 
Greenbeard said:
So back to my original question: under your system these people pay a "private insurance premium," except now a premium determined by the person's health status is mysteriously much lower. Are you just saying the premium is now being subsidized, whereas it wouldn't be in a private insurance plan? If so that's fine, but we could also just let people shop in the private sector and send the subsidy there. As is already being done in the exchanges.
Click to expand...
Of course it would be subsidized. Just as the entire system is today being subsidized. The difference is you wouldnt have had to blow up an entire system and lie to the 88% to provide coverage for the 12% and you could have done it at a fraction of the cost.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course it would be subsidized. Just as the entire system is today being subsidized. The difference is you wouldnt have had to blow up an entire system and lie to the 88% to provide coverage for the 12% and you could have done it at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

An entire system hasn't been blown up. Most people are in employer-based ERISA plans, they're by and large not governed by the ACA's insurance regulations. The individual insurance market where people shop on their own for coverage is what's substantially changed, and that remains a very small part of the market in which only a sliver of the population gets insurance. That's why when we talk about the exchanges we're talking about something like 10-15 million people total.
 
VanceMack said:
Piece of cake. By regulation and law, no insurance company can drop a patient after they develop a condition. Anyone that did not have insurance when they developed the condition would be eligible for medicare/medicaid while paying a private insurance premium.

It is unreasonable and follish to demand insurance companies take on new clients with preexisting conditions...especially where the individual previously did not have insurance. Thats like driving your car without insurance, wrecking it, then going to Allstate and demanding they sign you up as a client and fix your already wrecked car. But the solutions are just not that hard to find.
Click to expand...

I think another step that should be taken, but is never discussed, would be to raise payroll taxes on Medicare/Medicaid. Those haven't risen in years despite the rapid growth in the cost of medical care. If Medicare/Medicaid is underfunded, then fund them. It would obviously be unpopular since no one likes their taxes raised, but if the costs of those programs is soaring, then revenue needs to increase rather than cutting services and payments to doctors and hospitals that those programs do now.
 
Greenbeard said:
An entire system hasn't been blown up. Most people are in employer-based ERISA plans, they're by and large not governed by the ACA's insurance regulations. The individual insurance market where people shop on their own for coverage is what's substantially changed, and that remains a very small part of the market in which only a sliver of the population gets insurance. That's why when we talk about the exchanges we're talking about something like 10-15 million people total.
Click to expand...
Of course it has and its going to get worse. Premiums are climbing. Employers are cancelling plans outright. People were lied to about their coverage, their doctors, costs, etc. Doctors are leaving healthcare plans, and NO ONE knows what tomorrow is going to look like. I GUARANTEE...within 2-4 years (if Hillary is elected) it will be declared that the ACA was a failure but only because those darn pesky private insurers stand as an obstacle. In its place a united healthcare plan will be put in place. You can still pay for your own private coverage but taxes and federal debt will increase to pay for the universal system regardless. The government will move to kill medicare, medicaid, SS medical coverage, VA hospitals, and non combatant military hospitals to pay for its unified system.
 
Fletch said:
I think another step that should be taken, but is never discussed, would be to raise payroll taxes on Medicare/Medicaid. Those haven't risen in years despite the rapid growth in the cost of medical care. If Medicare/Medicaid is underfunded, then fund them. It would obviously be unpopular since no one likes their taxes raised, but if the costs of those programs is soaring, then revenue needs to increase rather than cutting services and payments to doctors and hospitals that those programs do now.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, for all the GOP bluster they will just keep going along, complaining all the way. They are unwilling to make cuts because they would look like the bad guys. Sadly...when so much of the country is on the path to being crippled dependent pets, they ultimately have a lot of power and sway.
 
VanceMack said:
Its quite simple. Take Individual A. Preexisting medical condition without coverage. Old system...couldnt get coverage or gets covered but has to pay out the ass. New system...CANNOT be dropped due to the condition if he already has coverage and applies for and recieves coverage under medicare medicaid but unlike a low/no income medicare medicaid recipient on disability, Individual A pays a premium like they would any other insurance company, but one that was affordable. His prexisting condition is backed by the government, not dumped on another private carrier.
Click to expand...

It appears you're just talking about high risk pools that existed in many states pre-ACA and failed in all of them. And it was because because they became dumping grounds for the sickest people, often lost their jobs because they couldn't work, couldn't afford even COBRA payments without income, employers dumped them, then taxpayers take care of the rest and costs as anyone could predict exploded, causing states to end the pools altogether or limit enrollment well below the need.

Somehow those costs have to be spread across the healthy population and how to do that isn't in fact at all simple. One way is to bring in a bunch of young, healthy people who pay lots of premiums when they're young but use few healthcare resources. That offsets the costs for everyone else and is one reason employer plans in part work pretty well, and why plans with a big pool work better than plans with small ones. And after paying premiums for years like I did with almost no healthcare costs beyond a physical every few years, it's equitable that I'm now receiving more in benefits than my premiums.

But for that to work you have to have a mandate, which most conservatives bitterly oppose. Etc. So the question isn't simple at all.
 
jonny5 said:
What if I dont pay the premium. Are you going to withhold care?
Click to expand...
Emergency care? No...you can go to the ER just like everyone else. Non emergent care? Yeah...personally...Im going to let you carry the burden of your own reckless and irresponsible behavior. Cant save stupid.
 
VanceMack said:
Its quite simple. Take Individual A. Preexisting medical condition without coverage. Old system...couldnt get coverage or gets covered but has to pay out the ass. New system...CANNOT be dropped due to the condition if he already has coverage and applies for and recieves coverage under medicare medicaid but unlike a low/no income medicare medicaid recipient on disability, Individual A pays a premium like they would any other insurance company, but one that was affordable. His prexisting condition is backed by the government, not dumped on another private carrier.
Click to expand...
Your actually describing something close to what we had before aca.

By law insurance companies were not allowed to drop you for developing some illness they did not want to cover. I believe by law they were also forced to waive preexisting exceptions when someone joined a group plan.

Your idea does not sound far off of that.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Emergency care? No...you can go to the ER just like everyone else. Non emergent care? Yeah...personally...Im going to let you carry the burden of your own reckless and irresponsible behavior. Cant save stupid.
Click to expand...

Hah, well then were basically on the same page.
 
VanceMack said:
Emergency care? No...you can go to the ER just like everyone else. Non emergent care? Yeah...personally...Im going to let you carry the burden of your own reckless and irresponsible behavior. Cant save stupid.
Click to expand...

No, but by continually neglecting stupidity, it ends up costing the taxpayers a lot more.
 
Top Cat said:
Ford shifting all U.S. small-car production to Mexico

Hecho en Mexico. Argh.


Detroit needs this like a hole in the head...
Click to expand...

It was inevitable. Small cars don't sell for much, they've always made their money on SUVs and Pickups, which will sell for far more dough and justify the labor costs, since the labor on a ford focus and a ford F-150 are not far off, and you can sell an F-150 at base model for 35K and a focus loaded for 20K, which do you think is profitable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom