• 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!

Kasich Steps up to the Plate

"Clearly neither do you" OF
Click to expand...
The difference between us is I don't exceed the limits of my knowledge and make ignorant amateurish assertions about "Try polling more real people" OF #270
"or the pollsters themselves." OF
Click to expand...
You're conspicuously firing blind, and in the dark.

I have neither the time nor the patience to educate you on modern public opinion polling protocols.
But just as a single illustration:
- when the poll is administered by telephone (that's right, a "telephone poll", har dee har har) there are complicated standards about:
- which telephones are polled
- which persons that answer the phone are eligible to take the poll
- how the poll questions are worded, so as not to bias the answer
- and much more.

You're half-right in your assertion: "Try polling more real people" OF #270
The word "real" is extraneous.
But provided the sampling METHODOLOGY is otherwise the same, increased sample size CAN improve the accuracy, & reduce the MOE.
If you think about it:
all the election day public opinion poll is, is a poll with a 100% sample size.
"Right up to election day, they were sitting in front of the tv cameras assuring us that Trump had no path to victory." OF
Click to expand...
I vividly remember.
And YOU are attributing this to an error in polling.
And while that could explain it, there is a VASTLY more plausible explanation.

And that is; that the electorate collectively was so confident in a Clinton victory that they didn't even bother to go vote; thus skewing the election result.
After all, if Trump had no chance, why inconvenience yourself with a pilgrimage to the polls?

The evidence that corroborates this explanation as opposed to yours is:

a) modern public opinion polling is intricate, and fairly reliable in most cases. Trump's win (he lost the vote) is not the rule, but the exception.

b) it's not merely one lame-brain pollster that $#@!ed up.
Multiple polling agencies with world class reputations such as Pew, Marist, Gallup, among others took numerous polls, perhaps dozens in total.
They didn't vary much over the months & years. They showed that Hillary had a solid lead.

For your explanation to be correct, ALL of these various polling agencies would not only have had to be making errors; but they ALL would have had to be making errors that resulted in arriving at the same poll results.
Over a more than 12 month period, among so many different world class organizations, that is astronomically unlikely.

Ockham's Razor. Do not assume the absurd!
 
ObamacareFail said:
You see, those young adults look at paying hundred of dollars per month premiums with an average deductible of $6000.00 to $12,000 are saying: What's the point?
Click to expand...

Get a grip. The median deductible for a plan bought through an exchange last year was $850 (down from $900 the prior year).
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, you are a part of the demographic that took it in the shorts - the not yet seniors who weren't eligible for subsidies. Ouch. That is something that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, all of the kerfluffle of "repeal and replace" isn't helping. It has become a partisan brawl rather than a sober discussion of practical solutions to the health care crisis.

As for those young people who don't want to subsidize oldsters, don't you see a bit of a conflict with your personal experience? If the youth had actually been subsidizing your health insurance, then your premiums should have gone down, not up.
Click to expand...

Sport....I did not take it in the shorts until Obamacare passed. And Obamacare is dying because it is an insanely stupid concept to begin with. The young and healthy did not have to subsidize my healthcare prior to Obamacare and my rates were relatively reasonable based on the my own health and the risks my the risks of my age group. And I have no desire to ask the young and healthy to subsidize my healthcare in their premiums. The young and healthy are just starting out in life compared to us baby boomers. They have their own problems. They are just getting started in their careers, raising families, buying homes etc. Why would I want them to pay significantly higher rates they cannot necessarily afford just for the sake of a generation loaded with couch potatoes with bad health habits such as chain smoking, heavy drinking, etc? You need to get over our apparent belief that Health Insurance in the US should be operated as if we were a soviet style collective. Private health insurance is a private sector product. It should not be subsidized by the government or run by the government. If the government would step back with the exception of relatively few common sense regulations, market forces would control the price of health insurance, just as with other forms of insurance.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well unless you just taxed the rich. :)
Click to expand...

which has proven to not work.
the average tax in European countries for someone making 55k which is about the median income in America is 40%
total. in some places it is higher where the total tax rate hits 50%.

that doesn't include the vat taxes that are on top of everything else.

sanders proved that taxing the rich can't pay for it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Sport....I did not take it in the shorts until Obamacare passed. And Obamacare is dying because it is an insanely stupid concept to begin with. The young and healthy did not have to subsidize my healthcare prior to Obamacare and my rates were relatively reasonable based on the my own health and the risks my the risks of my age group. And I have no desire to ask the young and healthy to subsidize my healthcare in their premiums. The young and healthy are just starting out in life compared to us baby boomers. They have their own problems. They are just getting started in their careers, raising families, buying homes etc. Why would I want them to pay significantly higher rates they cannot necessarily afford just for the sake of a generation loaded with couch potatoes with bad health habits such as chain smoking, heavy drinking, etc? You need to get over our apparent belief that Health Insurance in the US should be operated as if we were a soviet style collective. Private health insurance is a private sector product. It should not be subsidized by the government or run by the government. If the government would step back with the exception of relatively few common sense regulations, market forces would control the price of health insurance, just as with other forms of insurance.
Click to expand...

If the young and healthy started paying more after the ACA,
and if that offset the actual cost for older Americans,
and if you're an older American,
Why did your premiums go up when the ACA was passed?

This makes no sense.

But, I don't doubt you when you say your premiums went up. I have friends who are in their early '60s, not old enough for Medicare, and their health insurance is outrageous. It's no wonder they want to overturn the ACA, but...

your reasoning for the increase in payments doesn't make sense.
 
ludin said:
which has proven to not work.
the average tax in European countries for someone making 55k which is about the median income in America is 40%
total. in some places it is higher where the total tax rate hits 50%.

that doesn't include the vat taxes that are on top of everything else.

sanders proved that taxing the rich can't pay for it.
Click to expand...

Just think of it as direct trickle down economics.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the young and healthy started paying more after the ACA,
and if that offset the actual cost for older Americans,
and if you're an older American,
Why did your premiums go up when the ACA was passed?

This makes no sense..
Click to expand...

I never suggested that the rates going up for the young and healthy caused my rates to go up. I only suggested that the concept of the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid. There are other big reasons my rates went up. One is the insanely stupid one size fits all approach. Obamacare approved plans must carry all sorts of coverage I simply do not need....for example....do you really think a 63 year old male needs prenatal care or maternity coverage? Forcing pre-existing coverage into every policy also drives the rates up. It's like going with liability only coverage on your automobile, then wrecking your are and after the fact signing up for collision and comprehensive coverage and expectingyour auto insurance to retroactively cover your car getting totaled.

But, I don't doubt you when you say your premiums went up. I have friends who are in their early '60s, not old enough for Medicare, and their health insurance is outrageous. It's no wonder they want to overturn the ACA, but...

your reasoning for the increase in payments doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you are only hearing what you want to hear and you are then jumping to conclusions.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The young and healthy are just starting out in life compared to us baby boomers. They have their own problems. They are just getting started in their careers, raising families, buying homes etc.
Click to expand...

ObamacareFail said:
Obamacare approved plans must carry all sorts of coverage I simply do not need....for example....do you really think a 63 year old male needs prenatal care or maternity coverage?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't want to help out those young families just getting started in life.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I never suggested that the rates going up for the young and healthy caused my rates to go up. I only suggested that the concept of the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid. There are other big reasons my rates went up. One is the insanely stupid one size fits all approach. Obamacare approved plans must carry all sorts of coverage I simply do not need....for example....do you really think a 63 year old male needs prenatal care or maternity coverage? Forcing pre-existing coverage into every policy also drives the rates up. It's like going with liability only coverage on your automobile, then wrecking your are and after the fact signing up for collision and comprehensive coverage and expectingyour auto insurance to retroactively cover your car getting totaled.



Your problem is that you are only hearing what you want to hear and you are then jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...


Is this something I misheard, then?

I only suggested that the concept of the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is this something I misheard, then?
Click to expand...

No.....you are just limiting your scope to that and observing nothing else. I stand by my statement that the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid. However I also stand by my statement that it is not the only fault of the A.C.A. The one size fits all approach of writing policies is insanely stupid as well.....as is requiring that pre-existing coverage is built into every policy written. Forcing employers to provide coverage is also insanely stupid.
 
"I stand by my statement that the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid." OF #288
Click to expand...
It is the very essence of insurance to pool risk.
And within any insured population, there are those that are more at risk, and those that are less at risk.
Is it any wonder that the older a citizen gets, the more likely they are to need healthcare?

btw:
Q: Know why you shouldn't say the number 288 in mixed company?

A: It's two gross.
 
sear said:
It is the very essence of insurance to pool risk.
And within any insured population, there are those that are more at risk, and those that are less at risk.
Is it any wonder that the older a citizen gets, the more likely they are to need healthcare?

btw:
Q: Know why you shouldn't say the number 288 in mixed company?

A: It's two gross.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not, the only system that works is if each of the insured's premiums are based on their own risk factors. The younger insured's premiums should be based on their own risk factors. That's how insurance has always worked. That's why insurance paperwork includes such questions as "Do you smoke?" "What is your age?". Younger insured participating in healthcare insurance still adds to the pool. One of the great stupidities of Obamacare is the over and above rates for the younger insured has been running too many young Americans away from contributing. It's like home owners insurance.
 
"Whether you like it or not, the only system that works is if each of the insured's premiums are based on their own risk factors." OF #290
Click to expand...
"Only"?
Other systems work, even if not as well. Does the popular "single payer" do that?

In any case perhaps we agree that your scheme is optimal, even if politically unpopular to switch to at this point.
One of the obstacles is severely handicapped citizens that for whatever reasons are destitute.
Should they be covering the $hundreds of $thousands of $dollars for their own $health $care each year? OF COURSE!!

But you can't squeeze blood from a grape. THEY DON'T HAVE IT.
"The younger insured's premiums should be based on their own risk factors. That's how insurance has always worked." OF #290
Click to expand...
Insurers have had charts for this for over a lifetime. It's standard.

BUT !!

There too, there are exceptions. "Assigned Risk" for example.
"One of the great stupidities of Obamacare is the over and above rates for the younger insured has been running too many young Americans away from contributing." OF #290
Click to expand...
CBO has scored McConnell care, and reports that tens of millions would lose coverage with a "repeal and replace" switch from Obamacare to McConnell care.
And that's why.
Obama got the young & healthy in on the ground floor. It's not too unlike the way Social Security works.
Social Security doesn't pay benefits recipients the money those specific benefits recipients paid into the system in the first place. That $money is already gone!
Current Social Security recipients are paid from the Social Security revenues from current workers.

That's why Social Security is a pyramid scam, a Ponzi scheme.
And it was fine when the ratio of workers to recipients was 7:1.
Is it below 3:1 now?

It's not a question of whether this titanic pyramid scheme will collapse. It's merely a question of when.
 
PS

Please pardon my omission.

The term I excluded was "actuarial tables".
And yes. Absolutely. Insurers have been applying this approach for many decades if not centuries. As you suggest OF #290, it's a calculation of risk.

For more information, consult Lloyds of London.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No.....you are just limiting your scope to that and observing nothing else. I stand by my statement that the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid. However I also stand by my statement that it is not the only fault of the A.C.A. The one size fits all approach of writing policies is insanely stupid as well.....as is requiring that pre-existing coverage is built into every policy written. Forcing employers to provide coverage is also insanely stupid.
Click to expand...

If us older folks are still paying more, then you're right: it isn't working, so it's a bad idea.
As for one size fits all, I agree. There should be choices.
Requiring pre existing coverage is a lot like having fire insurance. You don't need coverage for pre existing conditions until you have one. You don't need fire insurance until you have a fire. The purpose is to spread the cost out so that no one has a loss they can't afford.
Agreed on forcing employers to carry insurance. That's one part that needs to be re examined.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are confused. Personal responsibility is voluntary. The federal government forcing you to buy a particular good or service is authoritarian
Click to expand...


That's funny. So under your premise.. we can get rid of all laws regarding murder, child welfare, car insurance etc. Because you choose to be responsible.. and the government can't make you take responsibility if you choose to take another's life. If you starve your kids, and beat them senseless.. the government cannot hold you responsible for your actions. If you choose to drive around without car insurance because you have nothing in assets.. and you smash into one of my clinics.. you can't be made to be responsible.

Because according to you being responsible can only be voluntary.

I doubt you believe in that. Its only because you hate obamacare. Otherwise you have no problem with the government mandating responsibility.

We are a representative democracy, not a communist collective.
Click to expand...

Actually we are a republic. But.. at the end of the day.. if you live in any community.. you are held responsible for your actions or lack thereof. When you don't feed your kids or beat them senseless.. you are held responsible. If you shoot off bottle rockets and start my wheatfield on fire.. you are held responsible. You are held responsible to educate your children.. you are held responsible to have car insurance so that if you crash into me.. I can be made whole for my loss despite the fact that you have no other assets. The same with healthcare insurance. If you get sick.. you are held responsible to pay your way, and not have the hospital eat it.. which means that all of us that has insurance has to pay for you.

Absolutely not. The best way to spread the risk around is to make health insurance affordable with market reforms, not government edicts. If insurance is affordable, their will be more then enough insured to spread the risk around.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the market reforms that are necessary DO NOT WORK unless there is a mandate that people have health insurance. Its just that simple. That's why republicans introduced and supported the mandate and market reforms.. rather than single payer that the democrats espoused. Only now.. that it was democrats that introduced a bill that had mandates did republicans come out vehemently against it.

Have you ever priced a heart bypass, especially with complications?
Click to expand...
That's funny considering what I do for a living. But yes.. I know exactly what a heart bypass gets reimbursed by insurance. Have you ever priced what it costs for a neurosurgeon to do complex surgery on a head injury, then the cost of ICU and ventilator why you are medically paralyzed for 3 weeks, until you are let up off the ventilator and placed on CPAP trials, with physical therapy, and speech therapy, with swallow studies, then another month in step down, and then finally a rehab hospital for another 60 days, then home health and outpatient therapies?
Makes a bypass look like buying a pack of Gum. All because a 24 year old tried to hill climb on a Honda 650. no insurance.

Once again, we are not living in the old USSR or modern day Red China. Taking chances with healthcare is an individual choice, not a state or federal government choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. we don't live in socialist countries where you get your health care. We have choice in this country. Choose your doctor, choose your level of insurance choose from another plans.. and that CHOICE comes with responsibilities... the responsibility to not put your healthcare costs onto other people because you don't have insurance.

In a system based on pricing policies based one's individual risk factors, spreading of the risk still occurs.
Click to expand...

Yeah no.. its the antithesis of spreading the risk around. If you are pricing based on individual risk factors.. there is no spreading the risk. that's the whole point of pricing on INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS.

[
 
"You don't need coverage for pre existing conditions until you have one. You don't need fire insurance until you have a fire." Dn #293
Click to expand...
ha

Great idea.
Don't buy insurance until AFTER you need it.

So you total your $40,000.oo car. What's the insurance policy on that going to cost you? $55K?
 
Obamacarefail said:
And not everyone has life insurance, yet the money is still there
Click to expand...
That's right.. and that's because when you die without life insurance.. you don't leave ME a bill for 630,000 for your death. However, when you wreck your Honda 650 without healthcare insurance.. you STILL GET HEALTHCARE. and that means that I and everyone else with healthcare insurance gets STUCK WITH YOUR BILL.

Now.. you want to let the 24 year old die on that hill? Let that 9 year old without health insurance die? Okay then... THEN you would have a point.. BUT YOU STILL WANT THEM TO GET CARE. You aren;t going to let them die... you are still going to demand that I see that patient.. regardless of their ability to pay. And because of that.. people need to be responsible and held responsible by having health insurance so that their choices to NOT EFFECT ME AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE AND HAS HEALTH INSURANCE.

I do have one question. I believe I have asked you this in the past, but never received a straight answer. Your stance on Health insurance fits right in with Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi?
Click to expand...

that's ironic. My stance on health insurance is 180 degrees from OBama, Schumer and Pelosi. I BELIEVE that individuals should be responsible for themselves. That is the way so that choice can occur. YOU are actually more in tune with OBama and Schumer and Pelosi. You STILL WANT PEOPLE TO GET HEALTHCARE. You demand it. You aren;t willing to let that 9 year old die with appendicitis because he can't pay. Or let that 24 year old die.. or that 54 year old man with a congenital abdominal aneurism that ruptures die.

YOU FORCE HEATLHCARE BUSINESS TO PROVIDE CARE.. and that FORCES THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR THEM. That's what you want... for people to avoid responsibility and get "free" (to them healthcare) at everyone elses expense.

The irony here is that I am the one that's a conservative.. and you are the one that's a liberal. You think society should just pay for someone when they crash their Honda because "gee they chose to go without health insurance.. they shouldn;t be made to be responsible.. that's their choice"... meanwhile.. your liberal philosophy forces the REST OF US TO EAT THE COST.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I never suggested that the rates going up for the young and healthy caused my rates to go up. I only suggested that the concept of the young and healthy subsidizing us older folks is insanely stupid. There are other big reasons my rates went up. One is the insanely stupid one size fits all approach. Obamacare approved plans must carry all sorts of coverage I simply do not need....for example....do you really think a 63 year old male needs prenatal care or maternity coverage? Forcing pre-existing coverage into every policy also drives the rates up. It's like going with liability only coverage on your automobile, then wrecking your are and after the fact signing up for collision and comprehensive coverage and expectingyour auto insurance to retroactively cover your car getting totaled.



Your problem is that you are only hearing what you want to hear and you are then jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the insurance companies know that you aren't getting prenatal care or maternity coverage right? and that you getting "that coverage".. didn't increase their cost AT ALL!.

Your problem is that you are only hearing what you want to hear and you are then jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Ummm hello Pot!.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom