• 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!

Obamacare continues to crumble.

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, and have been for several years now. Without it, no one would sell me health insurance. I'm too old.
.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Probably due to the rather low number of abortions needed for patients in the 65 + age category, don't you think?
Click to expand...

The same could be said for the general population as well (the incidence of miscarriage and abortion is very low over the whole population as well).

No the reason is that there is a federal prohibition on tax dollars being spent on abortion. Or anything considered abortion related. and so this affect Medicaid recipients as well.

And its not enough for the wackoos on the right who are constantly trying to defund Planned Parenthood.. even though already no federal money can go toward abortion.. and the federal money to Planned Parenthood goes to prevention of STD's, Cancer screenings and other womans health.

It makes no sense to put all of healthcare insurance.. into the hands of the whackadoos.

Because it's private group insurance. The insurer is willing to cover a thousand people, a few of whom might be over 60 and/or have diabetes, heart disease, etc. They're not wiling to cover one individual who has any of those conditions.
Click to expand...

but that's the big fib...

Its "private group insurance".. yet. EVERYONE that an insurance company covers is part of a group (companies customers) . So if they can cover that person in a "company group"... certainly they could cover them individually!.. Cause at the end of the day.. their profit comes from ALL the individuals that they insurance.. individual or group.. because its ALL ONE BIG GROUP!.
 
jaeger19 said:
Very true.



The same could be said for the general population as well (the incidence of miscarriage and abortion is very low over the whole population as well).

No the reason is that there is a federal prohibition on tax dollars being spent on abortion. Or anything considered abortion related. and so this affect Medicaid recipients as well.

And its not enough for the wackoos on the right who are constantly trying to defund Planned Parenthood.. even though already no federal money can go toward abortion.. and the federal money to Planned Parenthood goes to prevention of STD's, Cancer screenings and other womans health.

It makes no sense to put all of healthcare insurance.. into the hands of the whackadoos.



but that's the big fib...

Its "private group insurance".. yet. EVERYONE that an insurance company covers is part of a group (companies customers) . So if they can cover that person in a "company group"... certainly they could cover them individually!.. Cause at the end of the day.. their profit comes from ALL the individuals that they insurance.. individual or group.. because its ALL ONE BIG GROUP!.
Click to expand...

It's a group if they're insuring all of the employees of X enterprise. If an individual decides to quit X enterprise and start his/her own business, then he'd better not have diabetes or heart disease. If that's the case, his health care premiums will increase astronomically and his coverage will be less. That's the advantage of group insurance.

If the insurance company can pick and choose, sell to an individual rather than a group, then people at high risk will pay high premiums.

Before "Obamacare", they could simply refuse to cover "pre existing conditions." Now, they can raise the rates to unaffordable levels.

Now, should one insurer cover everyone in a particular locale, then we'd be back to group insurance again.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's a group if they're insuring all of the employees of X enterprise. If an individual decides to quit X enterprise and start his/her own business, then he'd better not have diabetes or heart disease. If that's the case, his health care premiums will increase astronomically and his coverage will be less. That's the advantage of group insurance.

If the insurance company can pick and choose, sell to an individual rather than a group, then people at high risk will pay high premiums.

Before "Obamacare", they could simply refuse to cover "pre existing conditions." Now, they can raise the rates to unaffordable levels.

Now, should one insurer cover everyone in a particular locale, then we'd be back to group insurance again.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. again that's the big lie. The REAL group is everyone that the company insures. That's the real group. In fact that's how insurance use to work. Face it.. insurance only works when people are paying in more than they are taking out. And that encompasses EVERYONE that company is insuring.

This whole "its group insurance is just a bunch of bull to justify their gouging. In my healthcare business.. if I were to pay for each of my employers to go out and buy a healthcare policy my cost would be 1/3 what it is if I purchase it as a group!

I worked it out. but of course I can't.. and why? because 1. My employers don't like the idea of purchasing their healthcare on the open market.. even though I would be picking up the tab.. and 2. I lose the tax benefits (as do my employees).

Now.. why do I have to pay 2/3 more for a Group insurance? Hmmm.. well I also have an agro business.. and you know how much my healthcare costs? 1/2 of what the healthcare does per person.

Why? Well I asked the insurance companies where my corporate headquarters are. They say "well its because healthcare workers have higher utilization of healthcare then other industries"...

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. Healthcare workers are WAY less likely to use healthcare services on an individual basis. They don't freak out because of a cold, or a sprain or numerous other injuries, symptoms that other layman will run to the doctor for.....because we are either knowledgeable or have easy access to someone that is. And we do a lot of self treating.

What REALLY is the difference is that Healthcare workers VALUE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE.. which means that they demand their employers cover them... and the insurance companies know it AND the insurance companies know that the profits in medicine are quite good.. and the price of premium is not set by costs.. its set by demand.. and the ability to pay for it.

I tried to find the study on the internet.. but a steady done on healthcare insurance premiums and industry profitability found a positive correlation between price increases and increases in industry profitability.. when experience rating (the amount people used the healthcare insurance was stable)..


The pre existing coverage is a bit of a hooey too.. Now there is something to be said for pre existing conditions preventing someone from going without insurance.. and then blowing out their back and then deciding to get insurance to cover their surgery and then cancelling the insurance right after.

BUT.. that's a rarity that would even happen because most people in private insurance are covered by their employer. And so when you hire onto another company.. they cover those pre existing conditions (sometimes there is a delay.. but still covered)... and yet.. lordy be.. insurance companies still make whopping profits.

the real reason for pre existing conditions is to prevent competition in the private individual market. Sure.. try to price shop for better coverage when we rack up your rate 25%... because no one will cover you for that bum knee if it finally gives out.. or for your sons acne medication.. or worse he gets kicked off because you failed to disclose that he got a tube of acne cream when he was 13.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. again that's the big lie. The REAL group is everyone that the company insures. That's the real group. In fact that's how insurance use to work. Face it.. insurance only works when people are paying in more than they are taking out. And that encompasses EVERYONE that company is insuring.

This whole "its group insurance is just a bunch of bull to justify their gouging. In my healthcare business.. if I were to pay for each of my employers to go out and buy a healthcare policy my cost would be 1/3 what it is if I purchase it as a group!

I worked it out. but of course I can't.. and why? because 1. My employers don't like the idea of purchasing their healthcare on the open market.. even though I would be picking up the tab.. and 2. I lose the tax benefits (as do my employees).

Now.. why do I have to pay 2/3 more for a Group insurance? Hmmm.. well I also have an agro business.. and you know how much my healthcare costs? 1/2 of what the healthcare does per person.

Why? Well I asked the insurance companies where my corporate headquarters are. They say "well its because healthcare workers have higher utilization of healthcare then other industries"...

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. Healthcare workers are WAY less likely to use healthcare services on an individual basis. They don't freak out because of a cold, or a sprain or numerous other injuries, symptoms that other layman will run to the doctor for.....because we are either knowledgeable or have easy access to someone that is. And we do a lot of self treating.

What REALLY is the difference is that Healthcare workers VALUE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE.. which means that they demand their employers cover them... and the insurance companies know it AND the insurance companies know that the profits in medicine are quite good.. and the price of premium is not set by costs.. its set by demand.. and the ability to pay for it.

I tried to find the study on the internet.. but a steady done on healthcare insurance premiums and industry profitability found a positive correlation between price increases and increases in industry profitability.. when experience rating (the amount people used the healthcare insurance was stable)..


The pre existing coverage is a bit of a hooey too.. Now there is something to be said for pre existing conditions preventing someone from going without insurance.. and then blowing out their back and then deciding to get insurance to cover their surgery and then cancelling the insurance right after.

BUT.. that's a rarity that would even happen because most people in private insurance are covered by their employer. And so when you hire onto another company.. they cover those pre existing conditions (sometimes there is a delay.. but still covered)... and yet.. lordy be.. insurance companies still make whopping profits.

the real reason for pre existing conditions is to prevent competition in the private individual market. Sure.. try to price shop for better coverage when we rack up your rate 25%... because no one will cover you for that bum knee if it finally gives out.. or for your sons acne medication.. or worse he gets kicked off because you failed to disclose that he got a tube of acne cream when he was 13.
Click to expand...

The difference between a group made up of people who have purchased insurance individually and a group made up of whoever works for a particular employer is that the insurance company can pick who is in the first group, but not who's in the second group.

The insurance company profiteering and manipulation of premiums just could be the real reason we spend so much on health care in this country as compared to other countries.

Since you have personal experience with the insurance industry, surely you must have a good solution that will lower costs and get more people covered.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The difference between a group made up of people who have purchased insurance individually and a group made up of whoever works for a particular employer is that the insurance company can pick who is in the first group, but not who's in the second group.

The insurance company profiteering and manipulation of premiums just could be the real reason we spend so much on health care in this country as compared to other countries.

Since you have personal experience with the insurance industry, surely you must have a good solution that will lower costs and get more people covered.
Click to expand...

Poop.. they make you think that.. but at the end of the day.. they are insuring everyone. Everyone they insure is part of the pool.

The insurance company profiteering and manipulation of premiums just could be the real reason we spend so much on health care in this country as compared to other countries.
Click to expand...

On healthcare insurance? Yes..

On healthcare itself? No.

Since you have personal experience with the insurance industry, surely you must have a good solution that will lower costs and get more people covered.
Click to expand...

Gosh man.. I have outlined a detailed proposal multiple times. on many different threads that you have been on. ::shock:
 
jaeger19 said:
Poop.. they make you think that.. but at the end of the day.. they are insuring everyone. Everyone they insure is part of the pool.



On healthcare insurance? Yes..

On healthcare itself? No.



Gosh man.. I have outlined a detailed proposal multiple times. on many different threads that you have been on. ::shock:
Click to expand...

Health insurance is a large part of what we spend on health care. That appears to be what drives up the overall cost of health care in general. From the viewpoint of the payers, it's a distinction without a difference.

Yes, you've come up with some ideas that might work, but they would entail a major shift in the tax code and wouldn't be accepted by the powerful insurance lobby.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Health insurance is a large part of what we spend on health care. That appears to be what drives up the overall cost of health care in general. From the viewpoint of the payers, it's a distinction without a difference.

Yes, you've come up with some ideas that might work, but they would entail a major shift in the tax code and wouldn't be accepted by the powerful insurance lobby.
Click to expand...

No.. health insurance is apart from healthcare.. that's a very important distinction to make.

Healthcare costs do drive up health insurance. But its hard to argue that insurance drives up the cost of healthcare.. (unless you want to argue in a large macro sense because it pairs demand with the money to pay for it)... without insurance. you would end up with cheap healthcare.. but it would be at the 1920 level of care. Because that's what an individual can pay for.



Yes, you've come up with some ideas that might work, but they would entail a major shift in the tax code and wouldn't be accepted by the powerful insurance lobby.
Click to expand...

Wait.. aren;t you a proponent of single payer? :shock: That would take a huge paradigm shift in this country.
 
jaeger19 said:
No.. health insurance is apart from healthcare.. that's a very important distinction to make.

Healthcare costs do drive up health insurance. But its hard to argue that insurance drives up the cost of healthcare.. (unless you want to argue in a large macro sense because it pairs demand with the money to pay for it)... without insurance. you would end up with cheap healthcare.. but it would be at the 1920 level of care. Because that's what an individual can pay for.





Wait.. aren;t you a proponent of single payer? :shock: That would take a huge paradigm shift in this country.
Click to expand...

Good point.
Probably anything that actually brought down costs would be a paradigm shift.

When people in their 60s but not old enough for Medicare are paying two grand a month for a high deductible catastrophic care sort of policy, we need a paradigm shift.
 
Puigb said:
7 years your political party had to come up with something. And they have squat, and you know it.

Good thing is, your party will likely end up paying for it in 2018 and 2020. So much for the "adults" being in charge, eh?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the legislation that is passed and signed into law and what the result of it will be.
If the legislation passed lowers premiums and deductibles, it will considered an improvement. If not, then not so much.

Sure, the Democrats can attack it, and its passing, but that's not going to mean much to the people who are going to end up paying the premiums and deductibles, regardless of what memes, narratives, attack talking points the biased news media and the Democrats put out there.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good point.
Probably anything that actually brought down costs would be a paradigm shift.

When people in their 60s but not old enough for Medicare are paying two grand a month for a high deductible catastrophic care sort of policy, we need a paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

Well that paradigm shift is in part to get it business out of buying policies.
 
eohrnberger said:
It all depends on the legislation that is passed and signed into law and what the result of it will be.
If the legislation passed lowers premiums and deductibles, it will considered an improvement. If not, then not so much.

Sure, the Democrats can attack it, and its passing, but that's not going to mean much to the people who are going to end up paying the premiums and deductibles, regardless of what memes, narratives, attack talking points the biased news media and the Democrats put out there.
Click to expand...

You claim bias, yet the bill was so horrendous that your own party couldn't muster up the votes to pass it.

You can keep trying to blame the media for Trump's and the GOP woes, but eventually that's going to wear thin. Hell, you guys tried to blame the media for Bush's woes, and the 2006 and 2008 elections indicate that the American voters were no longer buying that crap.
 
Im curious if since aca was implimented, have deaths due to a lack of health-care decreased and by how much?

How many lives have been saved and at what cost i think is the debate people should be having.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom