• 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!

ACA: What are the plans? Premiums?

274ina said:
__________________________________________________
Its OK being poor whe n the mobs is looking for heads to roll.......rememeber 1789

And your the liar. You cant read how to use the calculator with a max income of ~$44k.
Click to expand...

Oh I am not worried about you poor trying anything. You are 100x better off than 1789. In the end you will just sit back down and eat your twinkies.

Now, would you care to quote my lie. Or are you going to keep talking out your ass, continuing to prove why you deserve to be poor?

I mean if you can't handle this simple task, and wrap your brain around the simple concept of honesty, I don't see you could ever handle a task greater than opening a door for someone who can.

P.S. Come and try to take this head. Better start practicing to dodge bullets if that's your plan. You have't even taken the effort to make something of yourself, and you wan't me to be scared of making the effort to try and make heads roll? Like OWS? HAHAHAHAHA.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian (post 16) said:
Please explain this thoroughly if possible.

Most people who can afford to pay anything into the pool do so, and insure themselves. Some (probably small) number of people can afford to but don't. Many people cannot afford to and don't, and thus are uninsured.

This means that the untapped money in health insurance is in that middle group of people who can definitely afford insurance but opt not to have it. Relatively speaking, I think this group is quite small. And yet it's the only group we can draw some money out of using the mandate. The people paying for insurance are already paying, and most of the people paying nothing pay nothing because they can't. The success of PPACA in lowering costs for all relies entirely on the size of the group that can easily afford insurance but opts not to.

How big is this group of people, and is their contribution enough to save us?
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
The reason for the mandate is to increase the pool so that the things desired, like paying for pre-existing conditions, can be paid for. So, with the pool increased, no matter how it is increased, if you have insurance already, there is no valid reason that your insurance shold raise. Instead, that difference should be made up by the alrger pool.

Now the size of those that afford it I think is an unknown.
Click to expand...

Factcheck.org indicates 80% of the uninsured households (which is approximately 38 million) have incomes of less than $75k. How low of an annual income should a household go while still being mandated to pay for an ever-more expensive insurance product?

The reason for asking? Let's say PPACA guarantees 30 million more Americans will be insured tomorrow than are insured today, but only guarantees that 9 million more Americans are paying into the system who had previously opted not to. You're adding more freeloaders to the rolls than you're mandating into the system, because relatively few opt not to buy insurance.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Factcheck.org indicates 80% of the uninsured households (which is approximately 38 million) have incomes of less than $75k. How low of an annual income should a household go while still being mandated to pay for an ever-more expensive insurance product?

The reason for asking? Let's say PPACA guarantees 30 million more Americans will be insured tomorrow than are insured today, but only guarantees that 9 million more Americans are paying into the system who had previously opted not to. You're adding more freeloaders to the rolls than you're mandating into the system, because relatively few opt not to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

Even if that is true, it shouldn't raise the premiums. Isn't that what we talking about? The pools is larger, and thus insurance companies who raise premiums cannot logically base it on this. That was the point I was making.
 
Boo Radley said:
Even if that is true, it shouldn't raise the premiums. Isn't that what we talking about? The pools is larger, and thus insurance companies who raise premiums cannot logically base it on this. That was the point I was making.
Click to expand...

How much 'larger' are the pools? Realistically?
 
Arbo said:
How much 'larger' are the pools? Realistically?
Click to expand...

Well, the insurance companies, and I keep repeating they were in the room (this annoys liberals a lot), and they wanted this. SO, I think it is reasonable to conclude they thought it would be enough. But, we'll see.
 
Aberration said:
Oh I am not worried about you poor trying anything. You are 100x better off than 1789. In the end you will just sit back down and eat your twinkies.

Now, would you care to quote my lie. Or are you going to keep talking out your ass, continuing to prove why you deserve to be poor?

I mean if you can't handle this simple task, and wrap your brain around the simple concept of honesty, I don't see you could ever handle a task greater than opening a door for someone who can.

P.S. Come and try to take this head. Better start practicing to dodge bullets if that's your plan. You have't even taken the effort to make something of yourself, and you wan't me to be scared of making the effort to try and make heads roll? Like OWS? HAHAHAHAHA.
Click to expand...

Your lie is you cant know the amount that YOU will pay for a premium. The pay limit does not apply to you nor does the Calculator. You are to rich for the ACA to apply.

In 1789 they could live off the land and build a home with no restricions. Now we have massive homelessness. Thats fine, you just think that.
How are you going to hold off 50,000,000 pissed off Americans? Hope you have MILLIONS of rounds. of course we can alwasy burn you out of your
bunker at no cost in lives........
 
Neomalthusian said:
Factcheck.org indicates 80% of the uninsured households (which is approximately 38 million) have incomes of less than $75k. How low of an annual income should a household go while still being mandated to pay for an ever-more expensive insurance product?

The reason for asking? Let's say PPACA guarantees 30 million more Americans will be insured tomorrow than are insured today, but only guarantees that 9 million more Americans are paying into the system who had previously opted not to. You're adding more freeloaders to the rolls than you're mandating into the system, because relatively few opt not to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

NEO,

You are forgetting the income limits of the ACA. EVERYONE will have affordable insurance. Mine for instance will cost $22 month.
limits are 2% 4 t o8% and 9.5%. No reason ALL of the working uninsured will not get insurance.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, the insurance companies, and I keep repeating they were in the room (this annoys liberals a lot), and they wanted this. SO, I think it is reasonable to conclude they thought it would be enough. But, we'll see.
Click to expand...

That's really kind of a non-answer.

As it stands, we are told that about 90% of citizens have coverage. Of that 10% left over, how many are going to fall into the 'poor' category or poor enough, that government is going to pay for them, so they are not contributing to the pool? It matters because increasing the pool from 10 to 1% (depending what it will be) just don't add up to pay for all the stuff that is supposed to happen.
 
Arbo said:
That's really kind of a non-answer.

As it stands, we are told that about 90% of citizens have coverage. Of that 10% left over, how many are going to fall into the 'poor' category or poor enough, that government is going to pay for them, so they are not contributing to the pool? It matters because increasing the pool from 10 to 1% (depending what it will be) just don't add up to pay for all the stuff that is supposed to happen.
Click to expand...

No, it's an answer as best as can be answered. I don't know where you get your 90% number, but I do know insurance companies were in the room, and they wanted this. So, why would they if it was not going to handle the increase?

So, we need actual math before we can determine whether it adds up or not.
 
274ina said:
Your lie is you cant know the amount that YOU will pay for a premium. The pay limit does not apply to you nor does the Calculator. You are to rich for the ACA to apply.

In 1789 they could live off the land and build a home with no restricions. Now we have massive homelessness. Thats fine, you just think that.
How are you going to hold off 50,000,000 pissed off Americans? Hope you have MILLIONS of rounds. of course we can alwasy burn you out of your
bunker at no cost in lives........
Click to expand...

But I do know what I will pay. I never claimed the pay limit would apply to me. The calculator does work, I showed you the result. The ACA applies to everyone in the US. :roll:

You will never assemble 50M Americans. So again, not worried.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's an answer as best as can be answered. I don't know where you get your 90% number, but I do know insurance companies were in the room, and they wanted this. So, why would they if it was not going to handle the increase?

So, we need actual math before we can determine whether it adds up or not.
Click to expand...

LOL The insurance companies will go out with a bang. Right after they divide up the huge golden parachute money among the executives, say a final good bye to all of their employees and sail into the sunset on their corporate yatchs.
 
274ina said:
NEO,

You are forgetting the income limits of the ACA. EVERYONE will have affordable insurance. Mine for instance will cost $22 month.
limits are 2% 4 t o8% and 9.5%. No reason ALL of the working uninsured will not get insurance.
Click to expand...

I don't care about insurance. I care about the total health care needs of the country relative to the total amount of money the country can afford to contribute toward those needs. I think the former exceeds the latter.

If the ACA guaranteed you health insurance for a penny a month, would that say to you that we can all have health insurance for a penny a month?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL The insurance companies will go out with a bang. Right after they divide up the huge golden parachute money among the executives, say a final good bye to all of their employees and sail into the sunset on their corporate yatchs.
Click to expand...

So, this is their swan song? And evidence to support that?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL The insurance companies will go out with a bang. Right after they divide up the huge golden parachute money among the executives, say a final good bye to all of their employees and sail into the sunset on their corporate yatchs.
Click to expand...

And it will be a direct result of Obamacare.

I guess that's what the Democrats were trying to do all along, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
And it will be a direct result of Obamacare.

I guess that's what the Democrats were trying to do all along, eh?
Click to expand...

Agian, any evidence? Any at all?
 
Neomalthusian said:
I don't care about insurance. I care about the total health care needs of the country relative to the total amount of money the country can afford to contribute toward those needs. I think the former exceeds the latter.

If the ACA guaranteed you health insurance for a penny a month, would that say to you that we can all have health insurance for a penny a month?
Click to expand...

The USA spends 10 times the money needed to have HC for all US citizens due to the CEO leeches. Every other western nation proves this. So money is not the issue.

If a penny a month was all that was needed for Hospital supplies and the Dr/Nurse salary, Yes, that would be fine.

Trouble is we have CEO leeches and Wall Street Leeches driving up costs..........
 
Last edited:
274ina said:
The USA spends 10 times the money needed to have HC for all US citizens due to the CEO leeches. Every other western nation proves this. So money is not the issue.

If a penny a month was all that was needed for Hospital supplies and the Dr/Nurse salary, Yes, that would be fine.

Trouble is we have CEO leeches and Wall Street Leeches driving up costs..........
Click to expand...

Can you prove that 10x is because of CEO salaries?
 
Aberration said:
Can you prove that 10x is because of CEO salaries?
Click to expand...
No he can't because it aint that simple. Third post of his I read, he got a nomination for my ignore list. Good to see it wasn't misguided.
See I know a lot of those on the left blame the high NHE on profit and obsess that getting rid of profit will solve the issue. But this isn't the case. Heck, the majority of Hospitals were (and in some cases still are) not for profit and it still landed it with the problem.
The truth is that all stakeholders are to blame in part for the problem.
And it's not 10x the amount, best indicators would suggest maybe 2x, or unless..... You are trying to model the system on North Korea, idk.
 
Aberration said:
Can you prove that 10x is because of CEO salaries?
Click to expand...

Look at USA spending percapita. and say Australia.
Case closed.
The medicare budget alone would pay for HC for all. No one would get a bill. Ever.
 
Stewart said:
No he can't because it aint that simple. Third post of his I read, he got a nomination for my ignore list. Good to see it wasn't misguided.
See I know a lot of those on the left blame the high NHE on profit and obsess that getting rid of profit will solve the issue. But this isn't the case. Heck, the majority of Hospitals were (and in some cases still are) not for profit and it still landed it with the problem.
The truth is that all stakeholders are to blame in part for the problem.
And it's not 10x the amount, best indicators would suggest maybe 2x, or unless..... You are trying to model the system on North Korea, idk.
Click to expand...

Look at spending per capital in USA and the other western nations. Point proven.
And I have lived with universal care. It was great. USA is a dump.
New Zealand does not have a HC CEO making $125mil. So yes they ARE THE PROBLEM.
 
274ina said:
The medicare budget alone would pay for HC for all. No one would get a bill. Ever.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this crap?

It doesn't even begin to make sense that the money for one program (medicare) which is underfunded, is enough money to pay for even more healthcare.
 
Arbo said:
Where do you come up with this crap?

It doesn't even begin to make sense that the money for one program (medicare) which is underfunded, is enough money to pay for even more healthcare.
Click to expand...

Yes it does make sence if you apply say New Zealand spending on HC to USA.

That would be spending $696B for HC for all of USA. (using New Zealand rates - cost per capita - 290 mil (no illegals))
NZ $2400 per capita
USA $7538 " "


USA budget now is $550 to 600B for Medicare alone.

This would be a major savings because.
No medicad
No VA system or military
No employee spending
No employer spending
No $30B for the uninsured......

SO I may be a little off, but I am right.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL The insurance companies will go out with a bang. Right after they divide up the huge golden parachute money among the executives, say a final good bye to all of their employees and sail into the sunset on their corporate yatchs.
Click to expand...

I guess you had no evidence. Shocking. :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom