Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

lizzie said:

But the problem is, people like me will being paying for those who can't afford it. Up to now, I pay for my own insurance, and I'm happy with it. We're already paying for medicare and Medicaid, this will just be additional taxation for those of us who are paying through our noses.

Click to expand...

You'll only be paying additional amounts if you're earning enough that you no longer are allowed subsidies (something like 90K for a single person), or if the amount you're paying - minus the subsidies you will get - are somehow less than what you'll pay under the individual mandate.

And - just like I've told the others here - you pay ANYWAY, no matter what. You will either pay to help provide health care for people...OR you will help pay for the consequences of people not having access to health care - like, for instance, the little fact that half of all bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care expenses.

So which makes more sense? To pay extra to help people have health insurance? Or to pay extra for the consequences of people not having health insurance?

Glen Contrarian said:

You'll only be paying additional amounts if you're earning enough that you no longer are allowed subsidies (something like 90K for a single person), or if the amount you're paying - minus the subsidies you will get - are somehow less than what you'll pay under the individual mandate.

And - just like I've told the others here - you pay ANYWAY, no matter what. You will either pay to help provide health care for people...OR you will help pay for the consequences of people not having access to health care - like, for instance, the little fact that half of all bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care expenses.

So which makes more sense? To pay extra to help people have health insurance? Or to pay extra for the consequences of people not having health insurance?

Click to expand...

400% of the poverty line... which I believe makes it about $55k single person.

The difference is between a 'per use' basis that we pay now, and paying someone's premiums, no matter if the receive heath care or not. In addition, no new facilities as access points have been added, so any number of people will continue to use the ER as their access point. That is where the costs are more than what a regular doctor's appointment would run. If a person can get an appointment, appointment backlogs around here are about 4 weeks, and that's when you actually have something wrong with you.

People are not going to suddenly start getting all healthy because they have insurance. A poor nutritional diet will still cause any number of problems, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

There were many ways to address health care, and this is likely the worst choice that could have been made.
Insurance is just a method of payment. An expansion of Medicaid would have served the same purpose

Glen Contrarian said:

Tell me - HOW was it my oldest son's choice in any way, shape, or form? Did he have a choice that he got rheumatic fever while I was on active duty? Was it his choice that the government only included him on my TRICARE insurance until he was 22? HOW was any of this HIS choice?

But I guess in your world, my son should just do the patriotic thing and die so that you can personally save a minuscule fraction of a penny.

Click to expand...

was he drafted?

Glen Contrarian said:

So which makes more sense? To pay extra to help people have health insurance? Or to pay extra for the consequences of people not having health insurance?

Click to expand...

the latter, it isn't even a contest

Glen Contrarian said:

Tell me - HOW was it my oldest son's choice in any way, shape, or form? Did he have a choice that he got rheumatic fever while I was on active duty? Was it his choice that the government only included him on my TRICARE insurance until he was 22? HOW was any of this HIS choice?

But I guess in your world, my son should just do the patriotic thing and die so that you can personally save a minuscule fraction of a penny.

Click to expand...

$12k/year is hardly pennies. You had him, you pay for him

Glen Contrarian said:

I'm happy for you - but there are tens of millions of people who didn't have the opportunities you had. And what should I have done about my oldest son - say, "I'll decline military health care for my oldest son even though he has rheumatic fever and his life might be in danger, because someday some insurance company might deny him due to a pre-existing health condition!"?

Because YOU were able to do what you were able to do does NOT mean that everyone had the same opportunities you had, or were able to do the same things you did. And whether you like it or not, if THEY get screwed because they can't have health insurance, YOU pay for that anyway - just in different ways.

You're going to pay ANYway - so which makes more sense? To pay for people to have health insurance? Or to pay for the consequences of people not having health insurance?

Click to expand...

really, are you saying people are too stupid to pump gas, work in restaurants, and do farm labor while in school?

Rocketman said:

was he drafted?

Click to expand...

Rocketman said:

$12k/year is hardly pennies. You had him, you pay for him

Click to expand...

Your apathy disgusts me, sir. I struggle to believe that some Americans have these kinds of savage ideas.

Phys251 said:

Your apathy disgusts me, sir. I struggle to believe that some Americans have these kinds of savage ideas.

Click to expand...

Though I feel he's gone a little extreme, since when is everybody else's health issue everybody else's worry? Some of us have made a point through life to make sure we had insurance and took care of our health. Or, without insurance, paying their medical bills?

We now get to pay for those who didn't. Exactly what is wrong with not appreciating people who did not do the same?

Phys251 said:

Your apathy disgusts me, sir. I struggle to believe that some Americans have these kinds of savage ideas.

Click to expand...

I struggle with liberals that want everyone to pay more so they don't have to. I worked for what I have and should not be penalized for the population that chose not too. So your expectations disgust me.

GottaGo said:

Though I feel he's gone a little extreme, since when is everybody else's health issue everybody else's worry? Some of us have made a point through life to make sure we had insurance and took care of our health. Or, without insurance, paying their medical bills?

We now get to pay for those who didn't. Exactly what is wrong with not appreciating people who did not do the same?

Click to expand...

I did cross the line, but I am so tired of being penalized for doing the right thing.

This complete debate is an argument about a "PARTISAN" issue. Obamacare is Obama's big deal and it was passed. Now the Republicans have wasted taxpayer's money 44 times trying to vote it down and it hasn't worked. What is it they say about insanity: "repeatedly doing the same wrong thing and getting the same wrong result." This is a front page example of that circumstance. Now they are trying again. Gee, what could possibly be the result? Could anything possibly go wrong? Act surprised, like this is a whole new issue instead of the same insanity. Does this make Republicans appear to be heartless morons, or sellouts to Big Money Corporate? That's for you to decide.

DaveFagan said:

This complete debate is an argument about a "PARTISAN" issue. Obamacare is Obama's big deal and it was passed. Now the Republicans have wasted taxpayer's money 44 times trying to vote it down and it hasn't worked. What is it they say about insanity: "repeatedly doing the same wrong thing and getting the same wrong result." This is a front page example of that circumstance. Now they are trying again. Gee, what could possibly be the result? Could anything possibly go wrong? Act surprised, like this is a whole new issue instead of the same insanity. Does this make Republicans appear to be heartless morons, or sellouts to Big Money Corporate? That's for you to decide.

Click to expand...

The bolded isn't quite true. 8 of the '44 times' the legislation passed the Senate and was signed by the President. Several others of the 44 where supported in the House by significant numbers of Democrats only to be tabled in the Senate. This often repeated hyperbolic rhetoric is just that.

Rocketman said:

I don't think I should be penalized because most of those people did without coverage before being diagnosed with those illnesses. It is no different than farm subsidies or wall street bailouts. It makes me wonder about people that think they should be taken care of after ****ing their lives away.

Click to expand...

You do know the 20 to 25% of your current premium goes to pay for the uninsured don't you? Now that EVERYONE is required to be insured, there will be little need for that surcharge and no more young people gaming the system. You are like most detractors of the plan, totally clueless about what it REALLY is and what problems it attempts to solve. You really should talk to someone in Mass. who have been under a very similar system for years and have had little but good things to say about it. It is not perfect, but UHC was deemed too much of a change and from the reception the relatively moderate AHC plan is getting they might have been right.

iguanaman said:

You do know the 20 to 25% of your current premium goes to pay for the uninsured don't you? Now that EVERYONE is required to be insured, there will be little need for that surcharge and no more young people gaming the system. You are like most detractors of the plan, totally clueless about what it REALLY is and what problems it attempts to solve. You really should talk to someone in Mass. who have been under a very similar system for years and have had little but good things to say about it. It is not perfect, but UHC was deemed too much of a change and from the reception the relatively moderate AHC plan is getting they might have been right.

Click to expand...

I have associates in Montreal, Vacouver, and Richmond and they all pay about 20% more in taxes than I do to cover their healthcare and it sucks. I have no intention of ever liking this as my premiums are out of sight now since ACA has been passed. Obama and the people that support him are **** bags and have no love for the working American.

iguanaman said:

You do know the 20 to 25% of your current premium goes to pay for the uninsured don't you?

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in reading this data point...care to provide a source?

Now that EVERYONE is required to be insured, there will be little need for that surcharge and no more young people gaming the system.

Click to expand...

Those who don't already have insurance theoretically are being brought into the system based on receiving a subsidy. But where does the revenue for the subsidy come from...the general fund? And where exactly does that come from? It would seem that we are trading increased premiums for increased tax burden(ultimately). And as to the 'young people gaming the system' please explain how the current $95 annual (first year) threat is going to change their 'game'. Isn't the 'fine/tax' merely a reduction in tax return (obviously depending on income)? And since these 'young people' have little income (based on often repeated rhetoric) where will this 'tax return deduction' come from?

Dickieboy said:

I'd be interested in reading this data point...care to provide a source?


Those who don't already have insurance theoretically are being brought into the system based on receiving a subsidy. But where does the revenue for the subsidy come from...the general fund? And where exactly does that come from? It would seem that we are trading increased premiums for increased tax burden(ultimately). And as to the 'young people gaming the system' please explain how the current $95 annual (first year) threat is going to change their 'game'. Isn't the 'fine/tax' merely a reduction in tax return (obviously depending on income)? And since these 'young people' have little income (based on often repeated rhetoric) where will this 'tax return deduction' come from?

Click to expand...

Now you're complaining that the mandate is too lenient ? I thought you didn't like it? Now you want it to be stronger? Do you see how twisted your logic has become? Think of it this way, the more people enrolled in Health insurance the less each of us will pay. Surely you can understand why that is?

iguanaman said:

Now you're complaining that the mandate is too lenient ? I thought you didn't like it? Now you want it to be stronger? Do you see how twisted your logic has become?

Click to expand...

NICE strawman...!

Since you failed to respond to the initial request here let me help you out:

The Center for American Progress Action Fund has updated a 2005 analysis by Kenneth Thorpe for Families USA and found that, on average, 8 percent of families’ 2009 health care premiums—approximately $1,100 a year—is due to our broken system that fails to cover the uninsured.

Click to expand...

The Cost Shift from the Uninsured | Center for American Progress Action Fund

It would appear that your previous 20-25% number was off by...what a factor of 3...nice try...:lamo

Dickieboy said:

NICE strawman...!

Since you failed to respond to the initial request here let me help you out:


The Cost Shift from the Uninsured | Center for American Progress Action Fund

It would appear that your previous 20-25% number was off by...what a factor of 3...nice try...:lamo

Click to expand...

That number is quite old but $42 billion a year in higher premiums is OK with you I guess. You must enjoy paying for those gang bangers gunshot wounds. We all pay regardless and a least the insurers take is capped under the law. Do you like it that one CEO was paid $44 million last year and didn't treat a single patient?

iguanaman said:

That number is quite old but $42 billion a year in higher premiums is OK with you I guess. You must enjoy paying for those gang bangers gunshot wounds. We all pay regardless and a least the insurers take is capped under the law. Do you like it that one CEO was paid $44 million last year and didn't treat a single patient?

Click to expand...

Persistent strawman aside, do you really believe 'gangbangers' are going to comply with PPACA?...REALLY?

ps: I presented a source that contradicted YOUR assertion. Perhaps instead of criticizing mine you should provide one of you own that supports YOUR assertion...or just stipulate you were embellishing your point by inflating the percentage...

Dickieboy said:

Persistent strawman aside, do you really believe 'gangbangers' are going to comply with PPACA?...REALLY?

ps: I presented a source that contradicted YOUR assertion. Perhaps instead of criticizing mine you should provide one of you own that supports YOUR assertion...or just stipulate you were embellishing your point by inflating the percentage...

Click to expand...

You stated you didn't want to pay extra for "deadbeats". I proved that you already do and will be in the future without the AHC act.
How much extra do you figure you'll be paying for those subsidies you were whining about? Don't worry about the mandate it will get enforced.
Mass. has 98.1% participation in its own version of AHC. Here's a few facts you might not know about it.

439,000 more Massachusetts residents have health insurance coverage than did before reform.
Massachusetts has the highest rate of insurance in the country with 98.1 percent of residents insured.
There has been no evidence of subsidized coverage “crowding out” employer-sponsored insurance, and employer offer rates have grown from 70 percent to 77 percent since implementation of reform.
Public support for Massachusetts health reform has remained strong with two out of three adults supporting reform.
Most employers believe health reform has been good for Massachusetts and 88 percent of Massachusetts physicians believe reform improved, or did not affect, care or quality of care.


Click to expand...

https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/Health%2520Care%2520Reform/Overview/HealthReformAssessingtheResults.pdf

GottaGo said:

400% of the poverty line... which I believe makes it about $55k single person.

The difference is between a 'per use' basis that we pay now, and paying someone's premiums, no matter if the receive heath care or not. In addition, no new facilities as access points have been added, so any number of people will continue to use the ER as their access point. That is where the costs are more than what a regular doctor's appointment would run. If a person can get an appointment, appointment backlogs around here are about 4 weeks, and that's when you actually have something wrong with you.

People are not going to suddenly start getting all healthy because they have insurance. A poor nutritional diet will still cause any number of problems, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

There were many ways to address health care, and this is likely the worst choice that could have been made.
Insurance is just a method of payment. An expansion of Medicaid would have served the same purpose

Click to expand...

Sorry - my bad - here's a more accurate presentation of eligibility for the subsidies:

Now, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty level for a family of two is currently $14,570.

That means a husband and wife with no children who earn up to $58,280 (400 percent of the poverty level) would be eligible for federal health insurance subsidies.

For a family of three — mom, dad and one child — the poverty level is $18,310. So, a family of this size would be able to earn up to $73,240 and still be on the federal health-insurance dole.

For a family of four — mom, dad and two children — the poverty level is $22,050, and the upper income for getting federal health insurance subsidies would be $88,200.

For a family the size of the Brady Bunch — mom, dad and six children — the poverty level is $37,010, and the upper income for getting health insurance subsidies would be $148,040.

For a family the size of the one Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., grew up in — two parents and nine children — the poverty level is $48,230, and the cutoff point for federal insurance subsidies would be $192,920.

Really, now that's not bad.

You complain about the backlog - let me tell you, having to wait on a backlog of four lousy weeks is a heck of a lot better than having zero access at all. And if there's so many more people that doctors' offices are overloaded, well, there's this little thing called "market forces" - things will be rough and disorderly in the beginning (as is the case when ANY major change is made to a system), but more will open up as time goes on. No, people will not become magically healthy - it will take at least a decade for the improvement to really show...at which point our national life expectancy might start catching up to those of other nations that have had universal health care for over a half century.

As as far as this "likely being the worst choice", tell that to the fifty million or so - including my oldest son and my brother-in-law - who (until October 1st) couldn't get health insurance if they tried thanks to their preexisting conditions. And please don't tell me they can go the 'per use' route - we're not millionaires, that they can afford what they need out of pocket.

Rocketman said:

was he drafted?

Click to expand...

No. He turned 18 in 2002. Since he was in college, TRICARE covered him until he was 22, but after then he was on his own - with his preexisting condition, of course.

iguanaman said:

How much extra do you figure you'll be paying for those subsidies you were whining about?

Click to expand...

Too much!

Don't worry about the mandate it will get enforced.

Click to expand...

So you DO believe that 'gangbangers' will participate in PPACA...? REALLY?

Mass. has 98.1% participation in its own version of AHC. Here's a few facts you might not know about it.

Click to expand...

Suddenly yet ANOTHER STRAWMAN appears...GREAT for Massachusetts!...but I don't live there (nor do you) so what does it matter?

ps: How's that 'cost shifting' source coming?

Glen Contrarian said:

...As as far as this "likely being the worst choice", tell that to the fifty million or so - including my oldest son and my brother-in-law - who (until October 1st) couldn't get health insurance if they tried thanks to their preexisting conditions. And please don't tell me they can go the 'per use' route - we're not millionaires, that they can afford what they need out of pocket.

Click to expand...

But see that's just not entirely true. 33 States had/have high risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions prior to PPACA. There is typically some wait period prior to eligibility but coverage IS AVAILIBLE. I know this to be fact as it is how my wife got insured.

Rocketman said:

the latter, it isn't even a contest

Click to expand...

Really? That's the easy answer...for those who haven't really thought things through.

Are you a business owner? If so, if your people don't have health insurance, what happens to them when they get sick? They can't work - you don't dare let them work. What does that do to your bottom line since you've got to scramble for other people who may or may not have the training the sick guy had? Sure, it's nothing you can't work through - but it can and often does cost you in terms of dollars and productivity (especially if the sick employee was one of your most trusted, or one of your leaders).

And then there's the little fact that half of all bankruptcies in America are due at least in part to health care costs. Do you think it would help your business if, say, four-fifths of those bankruptcies went away? Because in Canada, only 10% of bankruptcies are associated with health care in any way.

And let's not forget what happens to those who lose their jobs due to sickness - all too often they and their families become dependent upon the state - YOU, the taxpayer - in order to keep fed, clothed, and housed...and so they become a further burden on the taxpayer...especially since they're no longer making money to spend in the local economy. And if they become homeless, what does that do to the crime rate? And what does an increased crime rate do to local businesses (and the insurance they pay)? And when there's more crime, guess what - YOU, the taxpayer is on the hook to pay yet more for police, firefighters, courts, and prisons...and with increased crime comes less customers to your business...and you make less money...and things spiral downhill.

And ALL this is in addition to the loss of productivity of the breadwinner - and the taxes that he or she would normally pay.

Of course, this doesn't happen because of only one or two people losing their jobs and their homes...but when it adds up to the thousands as it can in larger cities, this really is what happens.

In other words, all the above is why it DOES cost less to provide health insurance for everyone than it does to pay for the consequences of people not having health insurance. This is also why the rest of the first-world democracies are paying about HALF what we're already paying in taxpayer dollar for health care for our citizens.