• 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 predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion

Therefore, legislation that increases health premiums 100%... is a good thing?

The legislation isn't increasing prices. Business is. It's a typical bully response from big business.
 
I didn't say this system worked. I am one of those few who says "if you can't pay for it, and/or you can't find help privately, and/or you don't have insurance through your employer..... TOO BAD, SO SAD, SO SORRY. BYE BYE."

To that end, after age 65, I will not likely have any healthcare services. Once I retire, I'll likely be dead in 2-3 years because of it.

Got a minute? I wanna tell you a story.
There's a pit- in France, I think- that's a trove of Neanderthal bones. The presumption is they'd toss the bodies of their dead down into it; males, females, young, it's like a long-term mass grave. One of the skeletons was a grown man who'd suffered terrible injuries- one arm was amputated below the elbow, a wrecked hip, lower jaw screwed up, bad stuff. Thing is, all those injuries had healed well before he died. See what that means? The tribe or clan or whatever had nurtured this individual- fed him, helped him move with them, kept him safe and warm. They had no surplus, lived hand-to-mouth, but found a way to care for one of their own.
Any reason why a wealthy modern society shouldn't care for it's sick and injured?
 
The insurance companies were just guaranteed near 100% consumerism through law with no oversight or public option. You best bet your bottom dollar that they're going to jack rates. This sort of price fixing is common in closed economic systems.

I agree that a public option would have been the best safe gaurd, but they did put in place that a certain percentage of money taken in by insurance companies must go towards payments on medical care, I want to say 80 or 85%. So they can't jack up prices greatly without also increasing payouts.
 
Well, as best as I can tell, the 53% of the working public who are paying federal income taxes are also paying those myriads of other taxes.

Not really sure where you're finding the equivalence.

Ability to pay into social services should be factored into how much you pay. :shrug: Not all things are equal.
 
Got a minute? I wanna tell you a story.
There's a pit- in France, I think- that's a trove of Neanderthal bones. The presumption is they'd toss the bodies of their dead down into it; males, females, young, it's like a long-term mass grave. One of the skeletons was a grown man who'd suffered terrible injuries- one arm was amputated below the elbow, a wrecked hip, lower jaw screwed up, bad stuff. Thing is, all those injuries had healed well before he died. See what that means? The tribe or clan or whatever had nurtured this individual- fed him, helped him move with them, kept him safe and warm. They had no surplus, lived hand-to-mouth, but found a way to care for one of their own.
Any reason why a wealthy modern society shouldn't care for it's sick and injured?

Because that's what animals do.
 
Choo-Choo!




Train Wreck's a-coming. Hold on to your hats.[/FONT][/COLOR]

If you owned an insurance company and a bill like ObamaCare passed, one that is generally not well understood by most, wouldn't you contribute any price increases to that bill? What if you had been steady increasing prices well beyond inflation for decades prior? yea, you'd still blame it on that bill. It's an easy scapegoat. I'm not saying that's impossible that it will cost some prices to go up, but at the very least if you're going to act like a train wreck is coming down the tubes, you could provide us with a less partisan source than the actual insurance companies. Guess what my cable company says every single time that my bill goes up, without fail. They say it's to blame on the channels and they're effort to increase their profits. If I listened to them and only them, they hadn't increased prices in order to increase profits or because they're payroll got larger, or because the CEO needed more salary since the beginning of the company. Every single extra dollar goes straight to the channels they provide. I don't quite believe that, and I don't quite believe the insurance companies blaming all price increases on obama care.
 
I agree that a public option would have been the best safe gaurd, but they did put in place that a certain percentage of money taken in by insurance companies must go towards payments on medical care, I want to say 80 or 85%. So they can't jack up prices greatly without also increasing payouts.

True, but the absolute value of money taken in will scale with pricing, so making sure they spend X% on medical bills is only more incentive to jack prices. And without free market checks and balances, there's not much anyone can do about it.
 
When was there a free market in healthcare?
True, but the absolute value of money taken in will scale with pricing, so making sure they spend X% on medical bills is only more incentive to jack prices. And without free market checks and balances, there's not much anyone can do about it.
 
This would be agreeable if there weren't a myriad of other taxes 47% of the population pays. Even a family living on $15K a year isn't immune to taxation.

And which a majority gets back, and then some, in the EIC and various other assistance programs. Net negative taxes paid.
 
And which a majority gets back, and then some, in the EIC and various other assistance programs. Net negative taxes paid.

I'm alright with a family living on less than 1/10th of my salary to get most of it back. :shrug:
 
Despite your tough guy talk, I expect you will sign up for Medicare starting before your 65th birthday.

When I was young, I swore I would never take anything from the Government. I went my whole life without using unemployment. I paid my own medical bills until I was in my late 40s and then only because I got a group plan for my employees.

I took Medicare the moment I turned 65 and SS the moment I turned 67. So will you. Once you realize you are the only Authoritarian on DP and are irreplaceable, you will change your mind for the greater good, if not for yourself.

images.jpeg

I didn't say this system worked. I am one of those few who says "if you can't pay for it, and/or you can't find help privately, and/or you don't have insurance through your employer..... TOO BAD, SO SAD, SO SORRY. BYE BYE."

To that end, after age 65, I will not likely have any healthcare services. Once I retire, I'll likely be dead in 2-3 years because of it.
 
True, but the absolute value of money taken in will scale with pricing, so making sure they spend X% on medical bills is only more incentive to jack prices. And without free market checks and balances, there's not much anyone can do about it.

Yes, I get what you're saying. I also think that the exchanges will help a bit too. When you are able to go to a website, put in some basic info, and then it shows you health insurance quotes from ten different companies, all of them based on similar plans that meet standards laid out in obama care, you're going to see them price cutting more so in order to get under other competitors. The easier we make it to shop around prices, the more competition we create, and that's exactly what the exchanges do. So with that, and the required payout towards medical expenses, I don't see a huge explosion of prices. Granted I think One payer or a public option would be superior in price control.
 
Because that's what animals do.

C'mon, give it just a minute's thought, huh?
I did and I think the answer is in the word, 'surplus'.
 
The legislation isn't increasing prices. Business is. It's a typical bully response from big business.

So you are suggesting that businesses should reduce their profits because the Government now forces them to provide more health insurance than before?


Got a minute? I wanna tell you a story.
There's a pit- in France, I think- that's a trove of Neanderthal bones. The presumption is they'd toss the bodies of their dead down into it; males, females, young, it's like a long-term mass grave. One of the skeletons was a grown man who'd suffered terrible injuries- one arm was amputated below the elbow, a wrecked hip, lower jaw screwed up, bad stuff. Thing is, all those injuries had healed well before he died. See what that means? The tribe or clan or whatever had nurtured this individual- fed him, helped him move with them, kept him safe and warm. They had no surplus, lived hand-to-mouth, but found a way to care for one of their own.
Any reason why a wealthy modern society shouldn't care for it's sick and injured?

Yes, the INDIVIDUALS did it. The Government did not. It's unlikely some leader came around and took 3 berries from each member of the tribe (by force if necesary) to ensure that Gimpy could eat every day. THAT is the difference.
 
Tigger;Yes said:
Hey, if you want the safety-in-numbers and a place by the fire, cough up those berries. You wouldn't last the winter in the bush by yourself.
 
Ability to pay into social services should be factored into how much you pay. :shrug: Not all things are equal.

At the risk of repeating myself:

A well working society can't have 47% of it's population shielded from federal income taxes.

Should ability to pay into social services factor into how much one can participate in the decisions that provide them?
 
a) It is true. You are looking only at the insurance premiums the medical industry pays for mal practice insurance - which by the way you should look at the difference between some states.

b) The "sex change" issue is just a symptom not the focus. It is just one of many requirements that California, not all states, requires insurance companies to cover in the most basic health insurance package. There are countless other "procedures" they deem "necessary' and must be covered. It generally works like this - a group of doctors, an association of professionals, etc all get together, buy off a legislator, and next thing you know their little procedure is included in every one' insurance. Take this politics and government out the equation; let insurance companies offer what they want, and the prices will drop like lead in water.


This is not true. So not true I am not sure I want to go thru it. As I explained on another thread recently legal concerns are less than 1% (way less) and I dont think there are enough sex change operations to cause us to have the most expenseive healthcare in the world.
 
Of course insurers predict a huge price jump. They're the ones who set the prices! And no matter the cost of healthcare, they will not let their profits go down. So you have to pay more so they can stay rich. Health is too important to leave to predatory capitalists.
 
We neeed to have UHC. We already have the most expensive healthcare in the world. The system we have now is proven not to work. 17 of the nations largest insurance companies should have worried about this long ago.

But you don't fix the problem by making it worse, you fix the problem by fixing the problem. Obamacare does not fix the problem.
 
What makes you think it would be worse? There is a whole world (literally) of evidence indicating UHC is a better system. Oh ok but Obamacare is a start.
But you don't fix the problem by making it worse, you fix the problem by fixing the problem. Obamacare does not fix the problem.
 
What makes you think it would be worse? There is a whole world (literally) of evidence indicating UHC is a better system. Oh ok but Obamacare is a start.

There is a whole world out there going bankrupt over UHC and other bad financial decisions. Just because you want a thing doesn't mean you deserve it, especially when nearly half of Americans aren't paying into the system at all. That's just not a sound financial idea, it's based purely on emotion.
 
we have the most expensive healthcare in the world and they are going bankrupt. Think about that.[QUOTE. ephus;1061812208]There is a whole world out there going bankrupt over UHC and other bad financial decisions. Just because you want a thing doesn't mean you deserve it, especially when nearly half of Americans aren't paying into the system at all. That's just not a sound financial idea, it's based purely on emotion.[/QUOTE]
 
we have the most expensive healthcare in the world and they are going bankrupt. Think about that.

But Obamacare doesn't actually fix any of the problems, it just gives the end product away for free to anyone who wants it! There are lots of reasons it's so expensive, most of it in the insurance industry and our absurdly litigious society. How does Obamacare handle those two problems? It doesn't! It just ignores them, driving costs up even higher and pushing the whole system into bankruptcy even faster.

There are massive, major problems in healthcare in this country, but no politician is going to address them because they all get tons of money from the medical industry. Obama has just made it all worse.
 
Of course insurers predict a huge price jump. They're the ones who set the prices! And no matter the cost of healthcare, they will not let their profits go down. So you have to pay more so they can stay rich. Health is too important to leave to predatory capitalists.

In otherwords, costs are going up, and you're upset that the insurers aren't biting the bullet.
 
Back
Top Bottom