• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ok I guess only someone who sighed up for Obamacare could answer this question

Cigar

Cigar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
5,368
Reaction score
2,117
Location
In The Crosshairs
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Every single state has at least one (1) Insurance Company.

So if Obamacare is too expensive for some people, then obviously the alliterative wasn't? :blink:
 
Last edited:
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Cigar said:
Every single state has at least one (1) Insurance Company.

So if Obamacare is too expensive for some people, then obviously the alliterative wasn't? :blink:
Click to expand...

There is no alternative to PPACA - all "private" medical care insurance must comply.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
There is no alternative to PPACA - all "private" medical care insurance must comply.
Click to expand...

Thanks ... I didn't know. So it did matter which one you chose.

I've had Insurance for all my adult life, and never once has my insurance gone down.

So I'm really looking forward to seeing something the Insurance Industry has never once done in history.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Cigar said:
Thanks ... I didn't know. So it did matter which one you chose.

I've had Insurance for all my adult life, and never once has my insurance gone down.

So I'm really look forward to seeing something the Insurance Industry has never once done in history.
Click to expand...

Insurance generates its profit on a percentage basis - what makes you think that they would want a percentage of a lower amount?

Those that see UHC (single payer?) as our ultimate salvation, based on how it "saves money" in other OCED nations, have trouble explaining why our K-12 public education spending is higher than the OCED average but its results are not above average.

One big problem with any single payer system is that prices vary greatly by region - will single payer pay a doctor in NYC twice what they pay a doctor in MS for giving the same care?
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
Insurance generates its profit on a percentage basis - what makes you think that they would want a percentage of a lower amount?

Those that see UHC (single payer?) as our ultimate salvation, based on how it "saves money" in other OCED nations, have trouble explaining why our K-12 public education spending is higher than the OCED average but its results are not above average.

One big problem with any single payer system is that prices vary greatly by region - will single payer pay a doctor in NYC twice what they pay a doctor in MS for giving the same care?
Click to expand...

The problem with Healthcare is it's a necessity ... it's like Water and the Air you breath and it's not Market Driven, it's Need Driven. No one choose to get sick, and the smart money is in Preventive Care. Those "fasts" are born out of human history. It's a natural "fact" that the older you get. the more Healthcare you'll need, and the more expensive it gets. The Market has zero to do with it and the Insurance Companies know this better than anyone.

People who have the means, get the opportunity to have preventive healthcare. Those you don't have the means, have to pay more at a time they have less.

This isn't Rocket Science, just ask any Congressmen/women or Senator about the value of their Families Government Backed Healthcare and if they would give it up.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Cigar said:
The problem with Healthcare is it's a necessity ... it's like Water and the Air you breath and it's not Market Driven, it's Need Driven. No one choose to get sick, and the smart money is in Preventive Care. Those "fasts" are born out of human history. It's a natural "fact" that the older you get. the more Healthcare you'll need, and the more expensive it gets. The Market has zero to do with it and the Insurance Companies know this better than anyone.

People who have the means, get the opportunity to have preventive healthcare. Those you don't have the means, have to pay more at a time they have less.

This isn't Rocket Science, just ask any Congressmen/women or Senator about the value of their Families Government Backed Healthcare and if they would give it up.
Click to expand...

One big problem with health care spending is that a lot of it is spent simply (and briefly) delaying the inevitable (often called "end of life" care) - everyone will eventually die (of something). Getting folks to accept that basic fact and not calling it "death panels" prevents us from accepting a diagnosis of "totaled". Preventive care is not super expensive and (most) folks manage to afford it for their cars and homes without help from insurance or government middle men.

The Cost of Dying - CBS News
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

It's Sad, but I honestly believes Conservative in Government have lost their way.

They would have no problem in doubling the Military Budget and cut in half spending on the poor.

What the point in going to War when you have no health citizenship to protect.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
One big problem with health care spending is that a lot of it is spent simply (and briefly) delaying the inevitable (often called "end of life" care) - everyone will eventually die (of something). Getting folks to accept that basic fact and not calling it "death panels" prevents us from accepting a diagnosis of "totaled". Preventive care is not super expensive and (most) folks manage to afford it for their cars and homes without help from insurance or government middle men.

The Cost of Dying - CBS News
Click to expand...

This is true. We have a medical industry dedicated to extending life without making it better.

Medications which "alleviate" pain, or medical procedures which "preserve" people while doing nothing about the ills of aging themselves.

So we have growing numbers of aging people becoming dependent on drugs and medical procedures just to drag their tired, worn-out bodies through another day. But not one cure addressing the actual aging process.

Why? There is no profit in eliminating diseases and illnesses.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
One big problem with health care spending is that a lot of it is spent simply (and briefly) delaying the inevitable (often called "end of life" care) - everyone will eventually die (of something). Getting folks to accept that basic fact and not calling it "death panels" prevents us from accepting a diagnosis of "totaled". Preventive care is not super expensive and (most) folks manage to afford it for their cars and homes without help from insurance or government middle men.

The Cost of Dying - CBS News
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:
This is true. We have a medical industry dedicated to extending life without making it better.

Medications which "alleviate" pain, or medical procedures which "preserve" people while doing nothing about the ills of aging themselves.

So we have growing numbers of aging people becoming dependent on drugs and medical procedures just to drag their tired, worn-out bodies through another day. But not one cure addressing the actual aging process.

Why? There is no profit in eliminating diseases and illnesses.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is a choice the patient makes. Are you saying the patient should be denied this choice?
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Captain Adverse said:
This is true. We have a medical industry dedicated to extending life without making it better.

Medications which "alleviate" pain, or medical procedures which "preserve" people while doing nothing about the ills of aging themselves.

So we have growing numbers of aging people becoming dependent on drugs and medical procedures just to drag their tired, worn-out bodies through another day. But not one cure addressing the actual aging process.

Why? There is no profit in eliminating diseases and illnesses.
Click to expand...

This was what "outcome based" payment was supposed to address but it has been watered down (out of compassion?) to allow treatment of (masking?) symptoms without addressing (fixing?) the underlying cause. To expect insurance folks to care (or want to change this "pay for procedure" system) overlooks the obvious - the higher that total medical spending is then the higher the profit for medical providers and insurance is.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
This was what "outcome based" payment was supposed to address but it has been watered down (out of compassion?) to allow treatment of (masking?) symptoms without addressing (fixing?) the underlying cause.
Click to expand...

How was it "watered down"? What does that even mean?
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

countryboy said:
Actually, this is a choice the patient makes. Are you saying the patient should be denied this choice?
Click to expand...

That is precisely why we used to have actuarial risk factors (now called pre-existing conditions) which increased the insurance premiums for folks that will likely require/request more expensive care. By being denied that (lower premium) perk for not being "high risk" we are making that "choice" into a mandate for subsidized care. That flawed logic is a keystone of both PPACA (ObamaCare?) and AHCA (TrumpCare?) - make the healthy pay for the sick and outlaw (fair?) discounts for good health by calling them (unfair?) penalties for bad health.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

It's basic math ... insurance companies need the low-risk or no-risk to pay for the high-risk or they simply don't insure the the high-risk.

That's how it worked before 2010 and that's how it's going to work again.

Watch, Insurance CEO will go back to being paid more than Bank CEO's.

... and guess you pays them?
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

Greenbeard said:
How was it "watered down"? What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

It means that incurable (terminal?) conditions still get covered - the "outcome" is that you will be treated for life and the underlying condition will persist. These used to be called actuarial risk factors (and caused higher premiums to be charged for only those folks) but are now called pre-existing conditions (and everyone is forced to pay higher premiums instead).
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely why we used to have actuarial risk factors (now called pre-existing conditions) which increased the insurance premiums for folks that will likely require/request more expensive care. By being denied that (lower premium) perk for not being "high risk" we are making that "choice" into a mandate for subsidized care. That flawed logic is a keystone of both PPACA (ObamaCare?) and AHCA (TrumpCare?) - make the healthy pay for the sick and outlaw (fair?) discounts for good health by calling them (unfair?) penalties for bad health.
Click to expand...

I was speaking more to the philosophical aspect of the subject.
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

countryboy said:
I was speaking more to the philosophical aspect of the subject.
Click to expand...

I was talking about reality. ;)
 
Re: Ok I guess only someone who SIGNed-up for Obamacare could answer this question

ttwtt78640 said:
It means that incurable (terminal?) conditions still get covered - the "outcome" is that you will be treated for life and the underlying condition will persist. These used to be called actuarial risk factors (and caused higher premiums to be charged for only those folks) but are now called pre-existing conditions (and everyone is forced to pay higher premiums instead).
Click to expand...

Value-based payment isn't about covered services or premiums. It's about how health care providers--doctors, hospitals, post-acute, whatever--get paid. Their revenue becomes linked to the cost and quality of the services they deliver to their patients. Their business model, and ultimately the models they use to deliver care, becomes less about churning out widgets for marginal revenue and more about making and keeping patients healthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom