• 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!

Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?


  • Total voters
    7
$10,000 deductible health insurance policies haven't been available for $155 a month for a 55-year-old for I-don't-know-how-long. Try $600 a month. Someone else who has absolutely no idea what health insurance costs.

Those high-risk pools you speak of? Limited enrollment. Often a waiting list. Often 6-month pre-existing conditions exclusion. Subsidized? Yes. But still so expensive the only people who can afford to buy that coverage are wealthy.

Shall I scan in a copy for you? I pay it every month, have for two or three years now..... It's with BC/BS......
 
The cost of health insurance would have gone up regardless of ACA simply because health care costs are skyrocketing.

Not at the rates we have seen, these increases since ACA are more than the last ten years combined
 
Really? When I was on active duty, my oldest son got a severe case of rheumatic fever, and the military health care system took care of him and likely saved his life. But I have since retired from the Navy, and once my son turned 22 (this was years before Obamacare upped the limit to 26), his health care coverage stopped...and no health insurance company would touch him because of his pre-existing condition. But thanks to Obamacare, this coming October 1st, my son will have access to health insurance for the first time in eight years.

And then there's my brother-in-law, who just immigrated here to America this past July - it took us twenty-five freaking years to get him here - my wife petitioned him when he was eighteen, and now he's 43 of course (and NO, he's not a ward of the state - I and my wife are legally responsible for ALL his expenses - that's the way immigration works). Anyway, he has a heart condition. Do you really think that, after living overseas for all his life and having a heart condition, any health insurance company would even consider covering him? Of course not. But thanks to Obamacare, this coming October 1st, I'm going to be sitting down with him in front of a computer figuring out this health care exchange system.

BUT if we had things YOUR way, my oldest son and my brother in law would both be s**t out of luck...and apparently that would be your cue to say, "Welcome to America, land of the free! And don't get sick, but if you do, die quickly so you won't bankrupt your family members."

They are living with their choices, why should the rest of us sit in the penalty box because of THEIR choices?
 
That is human nature, NOT really "poor" behavour...And many jobs offered Blue-Cross/Blue Shield.....back in the day...so there was no need....and did you ever price individual health care insurance ....UNAFFORDABLE ! ...........COBRA.......
IMO, its better that our federal government take over this end of things and make it affordable for all people...much like social security....
As to "people ignoring coverage until sick"....they would not be granted any coverage anyway by the greedy insurance companies.

No is is poor behavior, most adults with a brain know that taking care of your finances and health are priorty one, alcohol, drug use, fancy cares and big houses all come after those two.
 
You don't know that. You think that. You assume that. All those "working Americans" you speak of who have maintained insurance all of their lives? *Boo-Hoo-Hoo* Most of them, the greater majority of them, did no such thing. They were given healthcare by their employers. Their plans were heavily subsidized by their employers. Hell, most people don't even know what their healthcare insurance costs.

Now...me? And others like me? Those entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs, invest in themselves and their own future? They've been royally screwed by the health insurance model in this country. Up until now. Boo-Hoo for them in the past. And three cheers for the future.

That is just pure liberal bullcrap Maggie. That insurance you speak up is not GIVEN, it is part of the total compensation package. SO boo hoo for all these others that chose to spend their earned money from their businesses on toys, houses, and cars that were beyond their means instead of getting health insurance.

Liberal minded people never want to be penalized for their choices much like criminals who plead not guilty and wear out our court system. I maintained health insurance for my family while making 20k a year in living in ****ing mobile home while my friends and neighbors did without living in nicer homes and cars. Now those same people are mooching off the rest of us that played by the rules. I say screw'em, there should be a penaty for poor behavior, not a ****ing reward.
 
That makes you jealous? That people with catastrophic illness get treatment? Do you want to trade places with them?
I wonder how the mind works sometimes.

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.
 
Shall I scan in a copy for you? I pay it every month, have for two or three years now..... It's with BC/BS......

No, that's be violating HIPPA laws. ;) Okay, I'll say then that you have the best policy on planet earth. That is not typical by any means.
 
No, that's be violating HIPPA laws. ;) Okay, I'll say then that you have the best policy on planet earth. That is not typical by any means.

I'd black out the name, it's just a premium bill. ;)

YMMV... but it proves the point that quite a few people do have policies in place to take care of the major stuff, most policies they can't keep under the ACA because it doesn't cover what the government thinks they should have.

It's the core of why I, and many others, feel the ACA is way out of line, pretty much from A to Z.
 
They are living with their choices, why should the rest of us sit in the penalty box because of THEIR choices?

Because with the individual mandate, people HAVE to provide for their own healthcare - at least to the point they can afford it. Otherwise families go bankrupt trying to pay for health care that EVERYONE - including you - needs sooner or later.

And think on this, guy - if lots of people go bankrupt, does it affect you? Sure does, absolutely it does...or do you think that a lot fewer people buying things during the Great Recession was an accident? The GR wasn't due to health care, of course, but half of ALL bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care costs. Do you think it would help America's economy if our rate of bankruptcies was cut in half? Sure would.

In other words, whether or not we have the ACA, you pay ANYWAY, whether to subsidize other peoples' health care, or to pay for the results of people not getting health care.
 
Because with the individual mandate, people HAVE to provide for their own healthcare - at least to the point they can afford it. Otherwise families go bankrupt trying to pay for health care that EVERYONE - including you - needs sooner or later.

And think on this, guy - if lots of people go bankrupt, does it affect you? Sure does, absolutely it does...or do you think that a lot fewer people buying things during the Great Recession was an accident? The GR wasn't due to health care, of course, but half of ALL bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care costs. Do you think it would help America's economy if our rate of bankruptcies was cut in half? Sure would.

In other words, whether or not we have the ACA, you pay ANYWAY, whether to subsidize other peoples' health care, or to pay for the results of people not getting health care.

But I pay much less, the increases from the provisions in ACA have been more than the last 10 years combined. I have never been without insurance since I got out of high school, maintained it through college up till now. I drove POS cars and worked 40 hours/week while in school, was it ideal-no, but it kept me covered.
 
Because with the individual mandate, people HAVE to provide for their own healthcare - at least to the point they can afford it. Otherwise families go bankrupt trying to pay for health care that EVERYONE - including you - needs sooner or later.

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.
 
With Obamacare basically a done deal we're now seeing these ads:



But the insurance industry needs young people to sign up for coverage if they are going to be able to afford the sick people that sign up as well. By encouraging healthy people to opt out, aren't they in effect attempting to make the insurance companies go broke? If that's so, doesn't that seem pretty anti-business for the pro-business party?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/politics/reignited-battle-over-health-law.html?hp&_r=0

The overarching goal is to persuade many of today’s 48 million uninsured to sign up for insurance on the new exchanges created by the law. Crucially, officials need to woo older, sicker people without insurance as well as younger, healthier people, whose payments effectively subsidize those who will end up using more health care...

But even as Mr. Obama’s campaign accelerates, Republicans at all political levels are working against the law.

The Republican National Committee has begun what it calls a monthlong awareness campaign, with a television booking operation to make sure that pundits opposed to the law are always available to counter its boosters...

Other conservative groups are broadcasting television advertisements that urge people not to sign up for coverage under the health care law. Americans for Prosperity began broadcasting an ad last week featuring a cancer survivor who warns about the dangers of the law. It is the latest in a series of commercials featuring women criticizing the law.


I'm a republican but do not speak for the GOP. Speaking for myself, I'm for the best healthcare for the public at the most affordable cost. I personally think health insurance in its present form reduces the availability of the best options for healthcare and increases costs. Good is better than nothing but I prefer best.

The problem herein is getting people to consider options other than what is already the status quo. In my humble opinion healthcare insurace should be limited to short term policies when Americans travel overseas and for hospitals and doctor groups who under a no pre-existing conditions denial and no lifetime limits policy accept annual one flat price fits all dues health services memberships. Their health insurance under my proposal would essentially be a bankruptcy protection policy in case a patient(s) costs to treat are so high they have one big catastrophic policy to cover the hospial or dctor group.

As I've learned in discussion boards on a wide variety of topics many if not most people simply put up a huge wall and resist anything that is not familiar regardless of how much sense it makes and how sucky things are in comparison on their side of the wall.

My opinion of the GOP hacks: they will do almost anything and hurt almost anyone or industry if it means damaging the Obama administration. This includes their own credibility.
 
Last edited:
You do realize, if a family of two adults (parents) and 2 kids is paying for family coverage, that a family of two adults and 3 kids (one over 21 but under 26 on this insurance mandate) pays the same premium?

So, exactly who is paying for the 26 year old again?

I'll admit I don't have kids so don't know how much it goes up per kid. But if it's a fixed cost regardless of how many kids like it sounds like you're saying, than a 1-child family would offset a 3-child family no matter what age limit is set. It's always more or less averaged out when everyone is pooled together.
 
Republicans voted against it. Try again.

Ntl, the individual mandate was a Republican idea. The only reason they voted against it is because they wouldn't get the credit and to spite Obama.
 
I'll admit I don't have kids so don't know how much it goes up per kid. But if it's a fixed cost regardless of how many kids like it sounds like you're saying, than a 1-child family would offset a 3-child family no matter what age limit is set. It's always more or less averaged out when everyone is pooled together.

And therein lies the problem, eh?
 
They are living with their choices, why should the rest of us sit in the penalty box because of THEIR choices?

That's mind-boggling how you describe a child with a preexisting condition as "living with their choice."

To anyone ranting about keeping the government out of health care, realize it has been in health care the whole time. It was the government that set up incentives for employers to be the primary providers of health insurance, going the capitalist route rather than the socialist route of Europe.

Now we have had nearly 75 years of experience with this system and we can see the defects. Huge costs, loss of insurance with loss of job, unequal costs for men and women, and people denied coverage for any reason. Obamacare is intended to address these problems for once.
 
I'm not forced to read or respond to your ****ty posts, either.

It's nice not being forced into things, isn't it?
 
That's mind-boggling how you describe a child with a preexisting condition as "living with their choice."

To anyone ranting about keeping the government out of health care, realize it has been in health care the whole time. It was the government that set up incentives for employers to be the primary providers of health insurance, going the capitalist route rather than the socialist route of Europe.

Now we have had nearly 75 years of experience with this system and we can see the defects. Huge costs, loss of insurance with loss of job, unequal costs for men and women, and people denied coverage for any reason. Obamacare is intended to address these problems for once.

show me where i said child liar? I did not read the rest after you started lying.
 
show me where i said child liar? I did not read the rest after you started lying.

When did I say you said "child liar"? I said "child with a preexisting condition 'living with their choice' ". Just read, fer chrisakes!
 
When did I say you said "child liar"? I said "child with a preexisting condition 'living with their choice' ". Just read, fer chrisakes!

which has nothing to do with what was being discussed, try keeping up
 
Not at the rates we have seen, these increases since ACA are more than the last ten years combined

The increase in healthcare costs was on a upward trajectory long before Obama took office....

Slide1.jpg


Back in 1970s, the United States looked a lot like other countries when it came to health care spending. In 1980, we spent $1,110 per person on health care, which worked out to about 9.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product. But in the 1980s, health-care costs in the United States began growing much faster than in other countries, rising to $8,402 per person in 2010. That amounts to a total of $2.54 billion spent on health care, or 17.9 percent of our total economy.

/ Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

But heres a surprise....spending in healthcare has decreased. That suggests that a lot of people are losing their insurance and not going to the doctor or getting medical treatment.

Slide4.jpg


Three key factors drive up health care costs. There's how much each unit of health care cost. There's population growth: the total number of people who need health care can increase. And there's utilization: The amount of health care each person uses can increase. In 2010, the cost of health care grew at about the same rate that it has for the past decade. So did the growth of the population. What's driving our slowdown in health care costs is a drop in utilization: Americans are using pretty much the same amount of health care as they did last year.

That's a big change from the past decade, where we increasingly used more and more health care.

/ Source: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Insurance companies need a large pool of people in order to spread the risk and keep the cost of insurance premiums low. The more people in the pool the lower the cost of insurance premiums. So if health care costs have more or less stabilized and yet insurance rates are going up then that suggests that less people are buying health insurance and going to the doctor because they can't afford it. So they wait until they are very sick to seek medical attention which actually costs a lot more than if they had been treated earlier. So who picks up the tab? The people who have insurance do because health care providers transfer the cost of the uninsured onto private insurers who in turn raise their rates on the insured.


"...Beginning this month (September 1, 2011) insurance companies must publish and justify all proposed premium hikes of 10% or more for the individual and small group markets, and state insurance departments must review them......

http://blog.healthpolicyproject.org/?tag=cost-containment

I would be curious to know if your insurance company published the reason for raising the cost of your insurance.
 
Last edited:
The increase in healthcare costs was on a upward trajectory long before Obama took office....



But heres a surprise....spending in healthcare has decreased. That suggests that a lot of people are losing their insurance and not going to the doctor or getting medical treatment.



Insurance companies need a large pool of people in order to spread the risk and keep the cost of insurance premiums low. The more people in the pool the lower the cost of insurance premiums. So if health care costs have more or less stabilized and yet insurance rates are going up then that suggests that less people are buying health insurance and going to the doctor because they can't afford it. So they wait until they are very sick to seek medical attention which actually costs a lot more than if they had been treated earlier. So who picks up the tab? The people who have insurance do because health care providers transfer the cost of the uninsured onto private insurers who in turn raise their rates on the insured.




I would be curious to know if your insurance company published the reason for raising the cost of your insurance.

26 year old added to insurance was one of the reasons

latest increases were due to provisions in ACA causing my company to lower the part they covered.
y

Your graphs are not broken out so they mean dick in this conversation
 
Obamacare-hater tears are delicious.

Can't wait to see the butthurt when more children begin to receive quality healthcare and more human lives begin to be saved!
 
They are living with their choices, why should the rest of us sit in the penalty box because of THEIR choices?

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.
 
But I pay much less, the increases from the provisions in ACA have been more than the last 10 years combined. I have never been without insurance since I got out of high school, maintained it through college up till now. I drove POS cars and worked 40 hours/week while in school, was it ideal-no, but it kept me covered.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom