Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal

[ludin]

An elder Inuit person might decide to be left behind, sitting on an ice floe, when they have determined that they can no longer keep up, and are slowing down the hunting party.

They are never asked to do so.

has nothing to do with what I said you concession is noted for failure to actually address the argument.

 

[hanger4]

OK, not "required", but it is about the level that most large employers pay. Are you saying that large employers shouldn't choose to give their employees good health insurance? Do tell.

"Are you saying that large employers shouldn't choose to give their employees good health insurance? Do tell."

Any, all employers should have the right to benefit their employees as they see fit.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

why should sick people not have to pay a bit more?

the same works for insurance. people who have a lot of tickets or accidents pay more for car insurance.
that is not the same as them not getting coverage.

While I do believe that smokers, the morbidly obese, and others whose lifestyle choices have resulted in them presenting a greater health risk, should pay more just like they would with any other form of insurance. It is flat out immoral to force those who are a greater health risk due to no cause of their own (such those born with genetic conditions, breast cancer survivors and so on) to pay a higher premium because of it.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

While I do believe that smokers, the morbidly obese, and others whose lifestyle choices have resulted in them presenting a greater health risk, should pay more just like they would with any other form of insurance. It is flat out immoral to force those who are a greater health risk due to no cause of their own (such those born with genetic conditions, breast cancer survivors and so on) to pay a higher premium because of it.

That's a difference without a distinction. When you start debating root causes and assigning blame for health conditions, you've already conceded. Eat at McDonald's too often? Pay more. Drive over the speed limit? Pay more. Don't get enough sleep? Pay more. Live in a high-crime area? Pay more.

There are very few sick people who can't be assigned some level of blame for their conditions.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's a difference without a distinction. When you start debating root causes and assigning blame for health conditions, you've already conceded. Eat at McDonald's too often? Pay more. Drive over the speed limit? Pay more. Don't get enough sleep? Pay more. Live in a high-crime area? Pay more.

There are very few sick people who can't be assigned some level of blame for their conditions.

That is simply not true at all. A life long smoker that gets lung cancer is completely to blame for their condition. Someone that has spent their entire adult life obese and needs a double knee replacement at age 50, is completely to blame for their condition. Damn near everyone with Type 2 diabetes is completely to blame for their condition.

A 35 year old vegetarian woman that has never smoked, never been over weight, and who regularly competes in triathlons, yet is diagnosed with ovarian cancer is not in anyway to blame for her condition. A kid born with Cerebral Palsy is in no way to blame for their condition.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

That is simply not true at all. A life long smoker that gets lung cancer is completely to blame for their condition. Someone that has spent their entire adult life obese and needs a double knee replacement at age 50, is completely to blame for their condition. Damn near everyone with Type 2 diabetes is completely to blame for their condition.

A 35 year old vegetarian woman that has never smoked, never been over weight, and who regularly competes in triathlons, yet is diagnosed with ovarian cancer is not in anyway to blame for her condition. A kid born with Cerebral Palsy is in no way to blame for their condition.

You're making my point. You're already tossing people with diabetes in with those hated smokers. Did this triathlete choose to live in an area with high cancer rates? Did she take unregulated supplements? Was she exposed to pesticides through her vegetarian diet? And how many people actually fit this description anyway?

People with congenital conditions fall into "very few" category. But even they could be assigned blame for lack of proper care and maintenance.

I don't mean to be a jerk. I'm just saying, I don't think we should charge anyone extra for health insurance, even smokers.

 

[JasperL]

That is simply not true at all. A life long smoker that gets lung cancer is completely to blame for their condition. Someone that has spent their entire adult life obese and needs a double knee replacement at age 50, is completely to blame for their condition. Damn near everyone with Type 2 diabetes is completely to blame for their condition.

A 35 year old vegetarian woman that has never smoked, never been over weight, and who regularly competes in triathlons, yet is diagnosed with ovarian cancer is not in anyway to blame for her condition. A kid born with Cerebral Palsy is in no way to blame for their condition.

That is all arguably true, but you've just highlighted some sort of obvious situations where the blame is (more) easily assigned, but the vast majority of the time it's not going to be so easy. What about a 35 year old, slightly overweight (20 pounds) woman who eats a fairly crappy diet with too much sugar, not enough veggies, and who walks a mile after work 4 days a week, and runs a 10k every few years? What if she doesn't even do that, and she's 20, 30 pounds, or 40 pounds, or 50 pounds overweight? Where's the line going to be for "it's not her fault" to "she only has herself to blame!"

And I'm a big believer in exercise, do vigorous exercise 5 or 6 times most weeks. But an instructor who's a big cyclist and 58yo is about to have his second major knee surgery. The first knee he blew out training for a half marathon. The second is just overuse and being older. Another female instructor age 30 or so is having her 6th surgery on a shoulder that she originally badly injured as a college swimmer. So should she be responsible for those surgeries and any in the future since it's her fault she was a college athlete who pushed herself too hard and blew out that shoulder when she was 20 and at 30 is still suffering from that same injury? Etc.

 

[Vern]

I hold Bush accountable for his deficits just as as much I hold Obama for his. And no, the deficits have little to do with the recession... try again. If anything, deficits suspend recessions... or draw them out over longer period of time... temporarily.... but in the end, we will all pay eventually.

sorry Celt, I simply don't believe you hold bush accountable. And you've proven you have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the deficits have little to do with the recession". The massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits President Obama inherited were mostly revenue collapse. Spending went up about 400 billion because of the Great Bush Recession but revenue collapsed 700 billion. So literally 1.1 billion of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit for FY 2009 was recession related.

And you did not address my point that by conservative standards, Bush is responsible for the Great Bush Recession.

 

[Vern]

I think you could place most of that blame on the Clinton regime. If you researched the real reasons.

er uh W, I researched the real reasons. Its why I can clearly state Bush is completely responsible. And here's the rub. He's responsible by conservative standards. It happened 4 years into his admin. I know you are simply posting what you wish was true so you don't care what the facts are but here's some research for you

I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

any chance you want to admit you were wrong about the mean ole dem congress giving itself an exemption to Obamacare?

 

[Vern]

You might want to look into the news from the past four years.

I know you think you made a point but you didn't. Look at the post you replied to. See how I made a clear point. I corrected what a poster said in the first sentence. I made a clear statement as to why his statement was incorrect in the second sentence. The third sentence was solid advice a the lesson to be learned. I then posted a link to prove my point. You did none of that.

 

[d0gbreath]

has nothing to do with what I said you concession is noted for failure to actually address the argument.

You compared human health to a ****ing driving record.

I do not like that. That's me addressing your argument.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That is all arguably true, but you've just highlighted some sort of obvious situations where the blame is (more) easily assigned, but the vast majority of the time it's not going to be so easy. What about a 35 year old, slightly overweight (20 pounds) woman who eats a fairly crappy diet with too much sugar, not enough veggies, and who walks a mile after work 4 days a week, and runs a 10k every few years? What if she doesn't even do that, and she's 20, 30 pounds, or 40 pounds, or 50 pounds overweight? Where's the line going to be for "it's not her fault" to "she only has herself to blame!"

And I'm a big believer in exercise, do vigorous exercise 5 or 6 times most weeks. But an instructor who's a big cyclist and 58yo is about to have his second major knee surgery. The first knee he blew out training for a half marathon. The second is just overuse and being older. Another female instructor age 30 or so is having her 6th surgery on a shoulder that she originally badly injured as a college swimmer. So should she be responsible for those surgeries and any in the future since it's her fault she was a college athlete who pushed herself too hard and blew out that shoulder when she was 20 and at 30 is still suffering from that same injury? Etc.

The plural of anecdotal is not data though. Yes we can all think of healthy people that still had health problems. However, in general, those that exercise regularly and eat a good whole foods diet will live longer and have tens of thousands of not hundreds of thousands of dollars less in health costs over the course of their lives than smokers and those who eat poorly and don't exercise. There is no reason that a 300 pound smoker should pay the same health insurance rate as someone that doesn't smoke, exercises, and maintains a healthy weight.

Someone with 3 DUI's does not pay the same auto insurance rate as a contentious driver.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You're making my point. You're already tossing people with diabetes in with those hated smokers. Did this triathlete choose to live in an area with high cancer rates? Did she take unregulated supplements? Was she exposed to pesticides through her vegetarian diet? And how many people actually fit this description anyway?

People with congenital conditions fall into "very few" category. But even they could be assigned blame for lack of proper care and maintenance.

I don't mean to be a jerk. I'm just saying, I don't think we should charge anyone extra for health insurance, even smokers.

One of adopted daughters has cerebral palsy and has significant paralysis on her right hand side. She has virtually no use of her right arm and little use of her right leg. Yet, despite this, she is an avid runner. She has consistently ran 12 to 20 miles per week since she was 10. She is 15 now, and here in a few minutes I will be going to one of her track meets. She also eats a very good diet, strength trains, even goes on wilderness backpacking trips with me.

It would be flat out immoral to charge someone like her more for health insurance simply because she has CP. However, let's look at the other side of this. Every year, type 2 diabetes, an entirely preventable disease, costs us hundreds of billions of dollars. So why the hell should someone takes poor care of themselves, doesn't exercise, eats terribly, and is obese and headed for type 2 diabetes as a result, pay the same rate as my daughter? If your poor health choices cost you nothing, you have little incentive to ever make better ones. However, if your told you are clinically obese, with high blood pressure and borderline diabetes, if you attain a 10% reduction in weight, you can get the preferred rate. Or, if you are a smoker, and you are told that if you do smoking cessation, you can get the preferred rate, otherwise you are going to have to pay the rate that actuaries determine the risk your choices justify.

This isn't micromanagement of people's lives. No one is saying are you wearing the right kind of running shoes, or are you stretching properly, what kind of neighborhood did you go on a walk through and so on. It is simply looking at the biggest causes of preventable disease, and saying just like any other form of insurance, your rate reflects your poor lifestyle choices.

If you get a dui you pay a higher auto insurance rate. We don't charge a contentious driver the same rate as someone that has racked up 10 speeding tickets.

 

[Helix]

will senators and representative be signing up to be covered by whatever "fix" they pass? perhaps that should be a requirement.

 

[Nilly]

The plural of anecdotal is not data though. Yes we can all think of healthy people that still had health problems. However, in general, those that exercise regularly and eat a good whole foods diet will live longer and have tens of thousands of not hundreds of thousands of dollars less in health costs over the course of their lives than smokers and those who eat poorly and don't exercise. There is no reason that a 300 pound smoker should pay the same health insurance rate as someone that doesn't smoke, exercises, and maintains a healthy weight.

Someone with 3 DUI's does not pay the same auto insurance rate as a contentious driver.

What about someone who smokes but eats very healthily vs someone who doesn't smoke but eats McDonalds every day?

It's impossible to make value judgments over things like that. The best and cheapest way to do things is to just guarantee a basic level of care for everyone, then put a tax on cigarettes and the like.

 

[JasperL]

The plural of anecdotal is not data though. Yes we can all think of healthy people that still had health problems. However, in general, those that exercise regularly and eat a good whole foods diet will live longer and have tens of thousands of not hundreds of thousands of dollars less in health costs over the course of their lives than smokers and those who eat poorly and don't exercise. There is no reason that a 300 pound smoker should pay the same health insurance rate as someone that doesn't smoke, exercises, and maintains a healthy weight.

Someone with 3 DUI's does not pay the same auto insurance rate as a contentious driver.

But you're setting up a rhetorical black and white choice (exercise regularly, whole foods, versus eat poorly and don't exercise and are obese and smoke) and what I'm pointing out is in real life most of us will be in a gray zone of some kind. Where do you start drawing lines? Are we going to have our diets and exercise audited by BCBS twice per year, send in grocery receipts to see if we bought too much ice cream and not enough green veggies? Get signed slips from our exercise classes or submit bicycle/running mileage and pace off the Garmin?

I agree with you on the benefits of exercise and eating right, which is why I get up at 5:20am 4 days a week, and cook most of our meals from scratch, and bike or hike or run nearly every weekend, and we take hiking/biking vacations, etc. But putting that knowledge into public policy will create MASSIVE practical difficulties and result in often really unfair results. Just for example, obesity is highly correlated with poverty for known reasons (lack of exercise too), so are you really prepared to impose huge penalties on the poor because of a bad diet that is driven in part by the fact ****ty food is FAR cheaper than a whole foods diet, and that's in part what drives obesity for the poor?

 

[prometeus]

https://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

Repeat after me:

'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'

It just proves AGAIN that while many law makers in general are douche bags, Republican law makers are the biggest scumbags in existence.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

One of adopted daughters has cerebral palsy and has significant paralysis on her right hand side. She has virtually no use of her right arm and little use of her right leg. Yet, despite this, she is an avid runner. She has consistently ran 12 to 20 miles per week since she was 10. She is 15 now, and here in a few minutes I will be going to one of her track meets. She also eats a very good diet, strength trains, even goes on wilderness backpacking trips with me.

It would be flat out immoral to charge someone like her more for health insurance simply because she has CP. However, let's look at the other side of this. Every year, type 2 diabetes, an entirely preventable disease, costs us hundreds of billions of dollars. So why the hell should someone takes poor care of themselves, doesn't exercise, eats terribly, and is obese and headed for type 2 diabetes as a result, pay the same rate as my daughter? If your poor health choices cost you nothing, you have little incentive to ever make better ones. However, if your told you are clinically obese, with high blood pressure and borderline diabetes, if you attain a 10% reduction in weight, you can get the preferred rate. Or, if you are a smoker, and you are told that if you do smoking cessation, you can get the preferred rate, otherwise you are going to have to pay the rate that actuaries determine the risk your choices justify.

This isn't micromanagement of people's lives. No one is saying are you wearing the right kind of running shoes, or are you stretching properly, what kind of neighborhood did you go on a walk through and so on. It is simply looking at the biggest causes of preventable disease, and saying just like any other form of insurance, your rate reflects your poor lifestyle choices.

If you get a dui you pay a higher auto insurance rate. We don't charge a contentious driver the same rate as someone that has racked up 10 speeding tickets.

Very Republican argument, there: "Why should I pay for poor people's food stamps or housing when they choose to work at Walmart?"

First, I applaud your daughter's efforts and wish her good luck at her meet.

But we're talking about insuring the American people. The entire nature of insurance is to mitigate risks by sharing them. I'm a healthy guy and I take pretty good care of myself, despite the occasional cheeseburger or donut. But I certainly don't have a problem sharing insurance risks with people who make different lifestyle choices: some healthier, some less so. It's still a benefit to me, because I can't afford an out-of-pocket bypass without that pool should I, god forbid, ever need one. The healthy pay for the sick -- that's the only way it can possibly work. By your notion, we might as well eliminate insurance and pay as you go, since that's what you're essentially imposing on those with the highest risks anyway.

And you are talking about micromanaging people, just through financial incentives instead of direct force. The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is inevitability. Most people don't rack up a string of accidents or speeding tickets. But everyone will need hospital care. Everyone will someday ride in an ambulance. Everyone will someday get sick and die.

I honestly am not quite getting your stance here. You want to tie health care access to some formula where risk is heavily factored, but only for those who fall short of some arbitrary standard of merit. I agree that your daughter deserves to have her health-care needs met. But I think my elderly neighbor who is on oxygen after smoking for decades deserves the same. Cultural norms and scientific understanding have changed our attitude toward smokers, but she made her choices in a much different context. We might discover tomorrow that your favorite health food supplement causes pinky cancer. Should the response be: "Too bad. You should have known better. Pay up?"

 

[Vern]

So what you are saying is the article in "The Hill," is a lie? That Congress now falls fully under Obamacare, that all members of congress get their insurance through the exchanges? That none of them, congress, took advantage of the Obama waiver?

Pero, its not your fault that your are not able to understand my clear straightforward posts. Its just how the conservative brain works. It is your fault that you didn't bother to read my link . My link proved my point. Its why you have to ask "questions." Lets review.

Sounds exactly like what the Democratic congress did with Obamacare. Exempt themselves.

It was pointed out by others and myself that your statement was incorrect. congress already had insurance coverage. There was no outcry that people with employer sponsored coverage should have to use the exchanges. It was a republican amendment that the democratic congress freely accepted. They literally "exempted" themselves from their employer sponsored coverage. That is the opposite of what you claimed. Again, you have to work harder to understand simple facts. Now when you finally understand that the democratic congress did not "originally exempted themselves" I can explain your Hill editorial.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, you only reach that conclusion through the ultimately silly assumption that there is no better option than PPACA. You invent scary stories of what might happen when you unleash the evil states on their poor citizenry and try to pass that off as the motive for the waiver exemption.

Most states had high risk pools for two decades; we don't need to speculate what that system looks like. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

If Congress wants to throw their constituents back to the wolves, they and their families should have to sweat it out on a high-risk pool waiting list like anybody else.

It's not mutually exclusive.

The GOP's across-state-lines proposal and state control over their markets are absolutely mutually exclusive. That's the entire point of it.

 

[Vern]

Again, no. It is more an excuse for the Democrats to imagine all sorts of bull**** scare stories that the evil states can perpetrate than it is a green light for dastardly Republicans to murder people.

oh my JM. I don't want to interrupt your delusional flailing at the Vox article but the people who believed and parroted lie after lie about Obamacare doesn't get to call anything "bull**** scare stories." Remember when you and yours obediently believed Obamacare had death panels, hundreds of thousands of doctors will retire, 50-100 million people will lose insurance, it only reduces the deficit because its 6 years of benefits and 10 years of revenue? I do. That's what "bull**** scare stories" look like.

If the system they implement through a waiver is better than Obamacare (not hard to do!)

I can only laugh JM, its obviously very hard to come up with a better plan. Have you been in a coma the last 4 months?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

https://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

Repeat after me:

'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'

Not sure who voted for these people.

 

[chuckiechan]

https://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

Repeat after me:

'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'
'Republicans really care about the American people'

You have to offer the democrats inducements. AKA "Free stuff", then it's not such a bad idea.

You can expect congress will be screwing with Obamacare for the next twenty years.

 

[ludin]

While I do believe that smokers, the morbidly obese, and others whose lifestyle choices have resulted in them presenting a greater health risk, should pay more just like they would with any other form of insurance. It is flat out immoral to force those who are a greater health risk due to no cause of their own (such those born with genetic conditions, breast cancer survivors and so on) to pay a higher premium because of it.

you are trying to pick winners and losers based on exceptions. sorry but that is not possible.
it is not immoral to ensure that healthy people are not paying a premium like obamacare does and one
of it's biggest failures.

 

[ludin]

You compared human health to a ****ing driving record.

I do not like that. That's me addressing your argument.

I don't care what you like or don't like.
you didn't address the argument.

there is no difference. People pay more because they are a risk to other drivers.
people pay more for insurance because they are a risk.