• 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!

Southern governors secede from Medicaid

Wiggen said:
Why is it the only poll Republicans ever pay any attention to is Rasmussen - the poll that leans right on everything and everybody?

Poll: 'Obamacare' Gains Support, Public Opinion Now Split | TPM Livewire
Click to expand...

Rasmussen polls the question more frequently. You like Gallup better?

Americans See More Economic Harm Than Good in Health Law

July 5, 2012
Americans See More Economic Harm Than Good in Health Law
Independents help tilt the balance to the negative
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are more likely to say the 2010 healthcare law upheld by the Supreme Court last week will hurt the national economy (46%) rather than help it (37%), while 18% say they don't know or that it will have no effect.
 
Wiggen said:
If you say so. I wouldn't go that far. I merely point out that the mental midgets running these states are the natural successor's to the clowns that voted for secession so that they could continue to own slaves.
Click to expand...

NEBRASKA??? :roll:
 
Arbo said:
First, they haven't had anywhere near 200+ years, do a bit digging into the history of actual healthcare.

Second, if the people wanted it in any state, it would have happened. Suggesting that because x didn't happen, the people wanted x is a silly argument.
Click to expand...

Well, the people elected a US Congress and a US President that made it happen. :2wave:
 
Wiggen said:
Except it isn't unpopular. The American public is evenly split on the issue, with some of those opposed taking that position because they don't feel Obamacare goes far enough. Really, get out of relying on Rasmussen for all of your information.
Click to expand...

Gallup has been saying roughly the same thing all along. Furthermore, the 2010 election was pretty conclusive.
 
Last edited:
Not surprised, seems like a hasty reaction to the supreme court decision from an outside vantage point. Something tells me they will reconsider their position when substantial political and lobby pressures begin mounting.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, the people elected a US Congress and a US President that made it happen. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Voted out the Congress at their first opportunity. O is next.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, the people elected a US Congress and a US President that made it happen. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, the people elected a president that during a horrible downturn, focused not on jobs and the economy, but rather putting together a system that will provide is with less healthcare, of a lower quality, and bankrupt the nation (even further) in the process. Oh the things some are proud of.
 
Arbo said:
Yes, the people elected a president that during a horrible downturn, focused not on jobs and the economy, but rather putting together a system that will provide is with less healthcare, of a lower quality, and bankrupt the nation (even further) in the process. Oh the things some are proud of.
Click to expand...

Almost every marginal Democrat lost his/her seat in 2010. Wonder why?
 
wbcoleman said:
Almost every marginal Democrat lost his/her seat in 2010. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

Not really surprising honestly. Not every President carries the House and Senate.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Just a thought:
Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.
So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?
Click to expand...
What I have read is that insurance companies make their money by investing the premiums.
 
Arbo said:
Says the guy that sources from "Talking Points Memo". :lamo
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your talking about. I'm sure it made sense to you, but then lots of things make sense to you that nobody else understands.
 
wbcoleman said:
Voted out the Congress at their first opportunity. O is next.
Click to expand...

In your dreams. You're so consumed by hatred for the President that you are unable to think rationally.
 
Wiggen said:
I have no idea what your talking about. I'm sure it made sense to you, but then lots of things make sense to you that nobody else understands.
Click to expand...

You quoted from TPM. When this is pointed out you suddenly have no idea what is being talked about? You belittle on biased source and yet use your own biased source.
 
On the main page, this thread title displays "Southern governors secede...". Deja vu.
 
Wiggen said:
In your dreams. You're so consumed by hatred for the President that you are unable to think rationally.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm imagining that the voters threw out 63 Democratic members of the House, the biggest loss since 1938. Just me being consumed by hatred. :doh
 
Kandahar said:
They could still have a reserve during a good year, it would just have to come out of the remaining 20%. Similarly, if they didn't have a reserve they could just post a corporate bond, and then pay its interest out of the remaining 20%.



If it's just one year, no big deal. They borrow money and pay it back next time they have a good year. If it's a consistent problem, then they just aren't charging enough for premiums.
Click to expand...

If they only have 20% to cover expenses and overhead and "profit" from, how will they pay it back?

If they have to increase premiums, how does that lower the cost of health care?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
What I have read is that insurance companies make their money by investing the premiums.
Click to expand...

But that investment doesn't matter if they're limited to a 20% "profit" to cover overhead, salaries, and as a carry over for future expenses.

They would essentially have to return that "investment" to the buyers until what they have left is that 20% of total revenue...and then apply that 20% to operations.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
If they only have 20% to cover expenses and overhead and "profit" from, how will they pay it back?
Click to expand...

Well, let's suppose that this insurance company has calculated their premiums so that they'll spend exactly 80% of them on health care in any given year, and exactly 20% on everything else including profits. During a "bad" year, the extra cost will have to come out of the remaining 20%...they could either pay it in cash and forgo annual dividends, or they could borrow money through a corporate bond. Then they could pay it back out of that 20% in the future.

If they have to increase premiums, how does that lower the cost of health care?
Click to expand...

This is just a hypothetical example, not the reality for all health insurance companies. If they can't afford to pay all their bills, year over year, then they just aren't charging enough for premiums...regardless of whether they have an 80/20 rule or not. The 80/20 rule doesn't change this overall cost structure.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
What I have read is that insurance companies make their money by investing the premiums.
Click to expand...

In a Kaiser report from a few years ago, the downturn of the market and insurance companies investment losses was cited as part of rapidly rising medical insurance premiums.
 
Further reading on this subject has brought some more things to light.
The feds are only going to cover, new eligible Medicaid at 100% costs, for the first 3 years and after that they'll pay 90%.

Seeing that Medicaid, tends to be one of the largest budget items for states to begin with and even paying for these people at 90%, it still represents a greater burden on the states finances, to cover these people.
If I were a state governor/legislature I'd reject it to, based on future financial obligation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Further reading on this subject has brought some more things to light.
The feds are only going to cover, new eligible Medicaid at 100% costs, for the first 3 years and after that they'll pay 90%.

Seeing that Medicaid, tends to be one of the largest budget items for states to begin with and even paying for these people at 90%, it still represents a greater burden on the states finances, to cover these people.
If I were a state governor/legislature I'd reject it to, based on future financial obligation.
Click to expand...

yeah, requiring states to spend an extra $30 without helping them raise that money, at this moment, aint soo smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom