• 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!

Donald Trump: I may not repeal Obamacare

Jack Hays said:
We're talking about reform and change. Why in the world would you think a tutorial about the current system would be of interest?
Click to expand...

Medicare Supplements are not the current Obamacare system. They are supplements to a single payer system, which compete with one another over completely identical plans. Which are mandated by the State and Fed Government across state lines. Looking at how these companies compete now, is completely relevant to your statement that more competition = better prices. When that is not the case. The price of Insurance is determined by the cost of insurance. You want lower costs, you need to tackle the Healthcare industry and their Billion dollar lobby. End the Charge master system, and ludicrous salaries of hospital administrators who are not even doctors. The doctors actually make **** wages compared to the people running the system. Our local non profit hospital profitted (in a rural area) over 345 million last year alone. And still wrote off enough loss to avoid paying taxes. Because of a quasi legal position they hold themselves in as a not for profit.

Address that and all insurance will be cheap.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Medicare Supplements are not the current Obamacare system. They are supplements to a single payer system, which compete with one another over completely identical plans. Which are mandated by the State and Fed Government across state lines. Looking at how these companies compete now, is completely relevant to your statement that more competition = better prices. When that is not the case. The price of Insurance is determined by the cost of insurance. You want lower costs, you need to tackle the Healthcare industry and their Billion dollar lobby. End the Charge master system, and ludicrous salaries of hospital administrators who are not even doctors. The doctors actually make **** wages compared to the people running the system. Our local non profit hospital profitted (in a rural area) over 345 million last year alone. And still wrote off enough loss to avoid paying taxes. Because of a quasi legal position they hold themselves in as a not for profit.

Address that and all insurance will be cheap.
Click to expand...

Open it all up to competition, then we'll see.
 
Jack Hays said:
Open it all up to competition, then we'll see.
Click to expand...

Open it all up to competition and you will have larger companies taking on huge losses to bankrupt smaller ones, and recouping those losses on the back end when there are maybe three of them left. But they won't appear to be three, because they will be parent companies chartering multiple agencies they can easily drop when certain groups leave profitability ranges. And they will use their already powerful lobby to keep regulations off the books in order to maintain prices. Insurance doesn't work like manufacturing. It's a bet on when you will pay, not if you will pay. You take the premiums and put them into a general investment portfolio, and pay the costs off your dividends. You assign people to homogenous groups you can price control as one, to make sure your risk is never greater than your reward.

The only way to get insurance cheaper is lowering the cost of insurance, as most insurance companies are not tallying profits from premiums, but how much those premiums will net them after they invest and before they use it. Opening up State controlled markets won't change how they operate. Won't change how they write contracts, or how the underwriters assess risk. Or how much a hospital charges (usually 1000 percent of the actual cost, I'm not joking even a little).
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm for giving it a try.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with a college try, as long as states can opt in and out as opposed to the Feds repealing all state laws on health insurance and starting a regulatory race to the bottom. Seems to me like if you're going to take that step, there ought to be some basis for concluding it will have a beneficial effect, and there is none that I've seen.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, it enables economies of scale in investment.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

The problem identified here is that the barriers to entry in new state markets are not regulatory in nature, but rather reflect an inability by outside insurers to negotiate with health care providers a favorable position in the market without already having local customers to offer them. Deregulating isn't going to solve that. That's why this hasn't worked in the states where it's been tried. The whole thing is based on a misunderstanding of what competition means in health insurance markets.

From the RWJF piece already cited:

Across state lines legislation was largely unsuccessful because of the localized nature of how health care is delivered. Respondents universally reported the enormous difficulty that out-of-state insurers face in building a network of local providers, and insurers identified doing so as a significant barrier to market entry that far surpasses concerns about a state’s regulatory environment or benefit mandates. State officials and insurers also noted that across state lines legislation ignores the primary cause of high prices—the cost of delivering care—and fails to account for often dramatic differences in the cost of care between states and regions.
Click to expand...
For example, a regional insurer, based in Massachusetts, reported that the company is “always looking at expansion opportunities” in New England, but is not considering Maine because of difficulties in establishing a provider network in the state, which was referred to as a “very challenging environment.” According to the insurer, the main challenge is that “the delivery system is locked up and [we] can’t make a deal [on provider reimbursement].
Click to expand...
As Wyoming officials noted, their residents generally do not want to leave the state to see an in-network provider.
Click to expand...
As one insurer put it, a bill allowing insurers to gain exemptions from benefit mandates or other requirements may “pique interest, but it doesn’t change things like the delivery network.”
Click to expand...
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Open it all up to competition and you will have larger companies taking on huge losses to bankrupt smaller ones, and recouping those losses on the back end when there are maybe three of them left. But they won't appear to be three, because they will be parent companies chartering multiple agencies they can easily drop when certain groups leave profitability ranges. And they will use their already powerful lobby to keep regulations off the books in order to maintain prices. Insurance doesn't work like manufacturing. It's a bet on when you will pay, not if you will pay. You take the premiums and put them into a general investment portfolio, and pay the costs off your dividends. You assign people to homogenous groups you can price control as one, to make sure your risk is never greater than your reward.

The only way to get insurance cheaper is lowering the cost of insurance, as most insurance companies are not tallying profits from premiums, but how much those premiums will net them after they invest and before they use it. Opening up State controlled markets won't change how they operate. Won't change how they write contracts, or how the underwriters assess risk. Or how much a hospital charges (usually 1000 percent of the actual cost, I'm not joking even a little).
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't think a conspiracy theory is the way to go on this issue.
 
JasperL said:
I'm fine with a college try, as long as states can opt in and out as opposed to the Feds repealing all state laws on health insurance and starting a regulatory race to the bottom. Seems to me like if you're going to take that step, there ought to be some basis for concluding it will have a beneficial effect, and there is none that I've seen.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but all the states have to be in, and under federal law exclusively.
 
Greenbeard said:
What are you talking about?

The problem identified here is that the barriers to entry in new state markets are not regulatory in nature, but rather reflect an inability by outside insurers to negotiate with health care providers a favorable position in the market without already having local customers to offer them. Deregulating isn't going to solve that. That's why this hasn't worked in the states where it's been tried. The whole thing is based on a misunderstanding of what competition means in health insurance markets.

From the RWJF piece already cited:
Click to expand...

Can't be done partially. All in.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I don't think a conspiracy theory is the way to go on this issue.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah conspiracy theory...

I was an underwriter and risk assesor for Conseco, which owned Bankers, which owns about thirty six different insurance companies. You conspiracy was my career. But I guess I'll just let it go at that. Enjoy all this conspiracy money coming in, I wish the IRS considered it a conspiracy. And Elizabeth Warren, who lobbied all my bonuses away.
 
American said:
Quote me the words from Trump where he says he's NOT repealing Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Even the headline doesn't say that. Try reading for meaning. I know it might be seen as "not appropriately worshipful" but reading is good.
 
Jack Hays said:
No excuse needed since that's not what he said.
Click to expand...

Second paragraph of the article. He said it will either be amended or repealed. Either one. It's right there. So excuse it. I know you'll try.
 
rocket88 said:
Second paragraph of the article. He said it will either be amended or repealed. Either one. It's right there. So excuse it. I know you'll try.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for him so I have no investment to defend. Whether they call it repeal or amendment doesn't matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
I didn't vote for him so I have no investment to defend. Whether they call it repeal or amendment doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Amend =/= repeal. Therefore in saying he would either amend or repeal, he said he "may not" repeal. Despite your protestations.
 
rocket88 said:
Even the headline doesn't say that. Try reading for meaning. I know it might be seen as "not appropriately worshipful" but reading is good.
Click to expand...


So now your backpedaling. I accept your concession.
 
American said:
So now your backpedaling. I accept your concession.
Click to expand...

I'm not backpedaling at all. He said he may "amend" which is not "repeal."

Also learn the English language please before posting here.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not backpedaling at all. He said he may "amend" which is not "repeal."

Also learn the English language please before posting here.
Click to expand...

You don't know what he's going to do, but he said nothing about not repealing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom