Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcare

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

"Eventually, with lots more people in the risk pools, premiums will decrease for better coverage."
National Journal: High-Risk Pool Enrollment Up But Still Slow Enrollment in high-risk health insurance pools is up over the short term but is well behind projections, according to the Health and Human Services Department. Total enrollment in the insurance program is up 50 percent over the last three months, from 8,000 to 12,000, but is a far cry from the projected 375,000 the administration anticipated would enroll by the end of 2010.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/February/11/high-risk-pools.aspx

Is that specious enough for you? Just another GOVERNMENT LIE to justify an Unconstitutional takeover of our Healthcare system.

I'm glad I was able to expand your vocabulary with the word 'specious'. You might want to look up the meaning, though, so you dont sound silly.

The argument that when you have more people in risk pools (and risk pools include both healthy and unhealthy/high risk people), you will get lower premiums for the higher risk people is not a speculative argument. Its not a guess. Its a fact. Its basic mathematics.

Much like the crazy argument the Republicans had about selling insurance across state lines without national standards.... that was a really stupid idea if you are looking to insure more high risk people at lower premiums. It would be awesome, however, for the people who really dont need health insurance.

Heres some basic tutelage in the concepts:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/September/30/selling-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

I'm glad I was able to expand your vocabulary with the word 'specious'. You might want to look up the meaning, though, so you dont sound silly.

The argument that when you have more people in risk pools (and risk pools include both healthy and unhealthy/high risk people), you will get lower premiums for the higher risk people is not a speculative argument. Its not a guess. Its a fact. Its basic mathematics.

Much like the crazy argument the Republicans had about selling insurance across state lines without national standards.... that was a really stupid idea if you are looking to insure more high risk people at lower premiums. It would be awesome, however, for the people who really dont need health insurance.

Heres some basic tutelage in the concepts:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/September/30/selling-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx

I actually don't know the answer to this. Does this bill state that a 30 year old who is healthy will pay the exact same as 400 pound 60 year old who smokes and never exercises?

Would those that support a PO believe that those two groups listed above should pay the same amount per month?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

I actually don't know the answer to this. Does this bill state that a 30 year old who is healthy will pay the exact same as 400 pound 60 year old who smokes and never exercises?

Would those that support a PO believe that those two groups listed above should pay the same amount per month?

I dont know if it states that. But that would be the basic concept of health insurance. Its not like fire or auto insurance. Its really not like insurance at all... since everyone will need to use it someday.

Right now, a 400lb 60 year old pays the same as a 25 year old who is healthy, when they are employed at the same job and have the same insurers. You CANT have a system that allows the 25 year old to pay a different rate, because the 40 year old mom with a history of breast cancer is basically un-insurable at any cost... which is what happens to those people who arent covered under an employer based plan.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

I'm glad I was able to expand your vocabulary with the word 'specious'. You might want to look up the meaning, though, so you dont sound silly.

The argument that when you have more people in risk pools (and risk pools include both healthy and unhealthy/high risk people), you will get lower premiums for the higher risk people is not a speculative argument. Its not a guess. Its a fact. Its basic mathematics.

Much like the crazy argument the Republicans had about selling insurance across state lines without national standards.... that was a really stupid idea if you are looking to insure more high risk people at lower premiums. It would be awesome, however, for the people who really dont need health insurance.

Heres some basic tutelage in the concepts:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/September/30/selling-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx

So competition across state lines is "stupid" how? Competition is the ONLY way to lower costs you moron. High risk premiums might go down for the high-risk people, however premiums certainly won't go down for the healthy or the population in general.... THAT IS ALSO BASIC MATHEMATICS. Does personal accountability ever enter into your line of thinking? Or is big-daddy government always the solution to every problem?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

So competition across state lines is "stupid" how? Competition is the ONLY way to lower costs you moron. High risk premiums might go down for the high-risk people, however premiums certainly won't go down for the healthy or the population in general.... THAT IS ALSO BASIC MATHEMATICS. Does personal accountability ever enter into your line of thinking? Or is big-daddy government always the solution to every problem?

Personal accountability for those people who happen to contract cancer? Or are stricken with an MI at an early age despite no risk factors? Or those who are born with congenital heart defects? Big daddy government is really the most practical solution to modern healthcare where quality care is beyond the means of 95% of the population for expensive conditions.


In this case, having insurance sold across state lines without federal standards (and thats the important part, here), would be awful for the people who actually need the insurance, which is kinda the point of health insurance.

If you allow insurance to be sold across state lines, all insurers will flee to whatever state has the most lax regulations... i.e. some small state that is looking to bring in employers. Then the state relaxes all regulations, allowing the insurer to capture as many healthy people as they can and ditch as many sick people as they can. This drives premiums way down for healthy people, but skyrockets premiums for sick ones.

You then have a situation where a state has insurance regulations in place that require insurers to pay for important stuff.. say cancer treatments. But no insurer will be based in that state because South Dakota lets them sell insurance that covers only colds and flu, and excludes all other illness.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Personal accountability for those people who happen to contract cancer? Or are stricken with an MI at an early age despite no risk factors? Or those who are born with congenital heart defects? Big daddy government is really the most practical solution to modern healthcare where quality care is beyond the means of 95% of the population for expensive conditions.


In this case, having insurance sold across state lines without federal standards (and thats the important part, here), would be awful for the people who actually need the insurance, which is kinda the point of health insurance.

If you allow insurance to be sold across state lines, all insurers will flee to whatever state has the most lax regulations... i.e. some small state that is looking to bring in employers. Then the state relaxes all regulations, allowing the insurer to capture as many healthy people as they can and ditch as many sick people as they can. This drives premiums way down for healthy people, but skyrockets premiums for sick ones.

You then have a situation where a state has insurance regulations in place that require insurers to pay for important stuff.. say cancer treatments. But no insurer will be based in that state because South Dakota lets them sell insurance that covers only colds and flu, and excludes all other illness.

So maybe all you liberals should dig deep into YOUR pockets and help these people or maybe you should get a second job since you now want to take resposibility for them. What you really want is for the people that earn there money to give it to the people that don't. I'd rather you just come out and say it than try and steal it!

 

[Bubble Burster]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

...In this case, having insurance sold across state lines without federal standards (and thats the important part, here), would be awful for the people who actually need the insurance, which is kinda the point of health insurance.

If you allow insurance to be sold across state lines, all insurers will flee to whatever state has the most lax regulations...

Actually, you have it almost completely backwards. The reason healthcare insurance is not currently sold across state lines is that it allows the insurance companies to operate without federal government control. The Constitution allows congress to regulate only interstate business. Therefore, as it stands now, health insurers are NOT subject to the Commerce clause.

Insurance sold across state lines would make the business subject to Federal control. So rather than ramming a public option down the American public's already gagging throat, why not just allow interstate sale of health insurance policies? You don't use a cannon to shoot down a fly.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

So maybe all you liberals should dig deep into YOUR pockets and help these people or maybe you should get a second job since you now want to take resposibility for them. What you really want is for the people that earn there money to give it to the people that don't. I'd rather you just come out and say it than try and steal it!

Its how health care needs to be financed. Bottom line. You will have to pay for sicker people than you, and healthier people than you will be paying for your healthcare. Thats kinda the concept of insurance.

Taken to the extreme, your vision is that poor people die off because of lack of access to medical care... but I guess thats the conservative way.... go back to a happier time in America... the 18th century.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Actually, you have it almost completely backwards. The reason healthcare insurance is not currently sold across state lines is that it allows the insurance companies to operate without federal government control. The Constitution allows congress to regulate only interstate business. Therefore, as it stands now, health insurers are NOT subject to the Commerce clause.

Insurance sold across state lines would make the business subject to Federal control. So rather than ramming a public option down the American public's already gagging throat, why not just allow interstate sale of health insurance policies? You don't use a cannon to shoot down a fly.

Right. And the Republicans want to allow interstate sale, but do NOT want to regulate it federally, because the states want to do that themselves, and we all know Republicans are all about states rights.

This means when you allow interstate insurance, the insurance flees to the least regulated state. Kinda like what happened with credit cards and South Dakota.

Maybe someone more eloquent than me can explain it better:
http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/16/reader-question-competition-across-state-lines/

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Personal accountability for those people who happen to contract cancer? Or are stricken with an MI at an early age despite no risk factors? Or those who are born with congenital heart defects? Big daddy government is really the most practical solution to modern healthcare where quality care is beyond the means of 95% of the population for expensive conditions.


In this case, having insurance sold across state lines without federal standards (and thats the important part, here), would be awful for the people who actually need the insurance, which is kinda the point of health insurance.

If you allow insurance to be sold across state lines, all insurers will flee to whatever state has the most lax regulations... i.e. some small state that is looking to bring in employers. Then the state relaxes all regulations, allowing the insurer to capture as many healthy people as they can and ditch as many sick people as they can. This drives premiums way down for healthy people, but skyrockets premiums for sick ones.

You then have a situation where a state has insurance regulations in place that require insurers to pay for important stuff.. say cancer treatments. But no insurer will be based in that state because South Dakota lets them sell insurance that covers only colds and flu, and excludes all other illness.

Well at least you have acknowledged the first lie which is that it will lower premiums... CLEARLY IT WILL NOT. When I get a minute I will deconstruct the rest of your hollow arguement.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Actually, you have it almost completely backwards. The reason healthcare insurance is not currently sold across state lines is that it allows the insurance companies to operate without federal government control. The Constitution allows congress to regulate only interstate business. Therefore, as it stands now, health insurers are NOT subject to the Commerce clause.

Insurance sold across state lines would make the business subject to Federal control. So rather than ramming a public option down the American public's already gagging throat, why not just allow interstate sale of health insurance policies? You don't use a cannon to shoot down a fly.

Fantastic point.... but to allow that to happen, Big Daddy government would have to loosen its strangle-hold on America. Liberals aren't into liberty and freedom and silly stuff like that.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Well at least you have acknowledged the first lie which is that it will lower premiums... CLEARLY IT WILL NOT. When I get a minute I will deconstruct the rest of your hollow arguement.

Perhaps you had better wait until you get a brain and learn something about economics.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Right. And the Republicans want to allow interstate sale, but do NOT want to regulate it federally, because the states want to do that themselves, and we all know Republicans are all about states rights.

This means when you allow interstate insurance, the insurance flees to the least regulated state. Kinda like what happened with credit cards and South Dakota.

Maybe someone more eloquent than me can explain it better:
http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/16/reader-question-competition-across-state-lines/

The point, dear reader, is that once health insurers are allowed to cross state lines to do business, the Federal government will want to take control. There will no longer be state control of insurance. And we all know how well the government manages other business. If you like the Post Office you're gonna love Federally run health insurance.

Liberals never met a government program they didn't like.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

The point, dear reader, is that once health insurers are allowed to cross state lines to do business, the Federal government will want to take control. There will no longer be state control of insurance. And we all know how well the government manages other business. If you like the Post Office you're gonna love Federally run health insurance.

Liberals never met a government program they didn't like.

So your point is that we should NOT sell health insurance across state lines?

Or is your point that we SHOULD sell health insurance across state lines?

Because clearly, the concept of selling insurance across state lines with NO regulation is a terrible idea, as has been clearly outlined in all the above posts.

I have a feeling you dont know what you want.. you just dont want government to touch your Medicare.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

So your point is that we should NOT sell health insurance across state lines?

Or is your point that we SHOULD sell health insurance across state lines?

Because clearly, the concept of selling insurance across state lines with NO regulation is a terrible idea, as has been clearly outlined in all the above posts.

I have a feeling you dont know what you want.. you just dont want government to touch your Medicare.

"NO regulation"..... Please direct me to some business in America that is NOT regulated or more to the point OVER-REGULATED.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Perhaps you had better wait until you get a brain and learn something about economics.

I am not trying to deconstruct your arguement.... My comment was directed to the guy who thinks risk-pools will lower premiums for everyone.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Its how health care needs to be financed. Bottom line. You will have to pay for sicker people than you, and healthier people than you will be paying for your healthcare. Thats kinda the concept of insurance.

Taken to the extreme, your vision is that poor people die off because of lack of access to medical care... but I guess thats the conservative way.... go back to a happier time in America... the 18th century.

So your arguement is that once they have the utopian-government healthcare that they will NEVER be denied SPEEDY treatment for anything? Wow... you are dumb

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

"NO regulation"..... Please direct me to some business in America that is NOT regulated or more to the point OVER-REGULATED.

And you avoid the point.. so selling insurance with significantly less regulation (i.e. the insurers really dont need to cover the sick people) a better idea?

I can tell you its a great thing for healthy people... much much cheaper.
Its worthless for high risk people - those that are or are likely to get sick.

So if you want to make health insurance pointless, sell across state lines with loose regulation. No one will like the outcome of that, and that wont solve any problems with our health care system... it will only exacerbate it.

Its tough to treat health care as a pure free market issue... because in a free market, you can always refuse a good. In health care, you really cant refuse lifesaving treatment (at least, not if you want to have a society that doesnt resemble somethng from the 13th century)

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

Its how health care needs to be financed. Bottom line. You will have to pay for sicker people than you, and healthier people than you will be paying for your healthcare. Thats kinda the concept of insurance.

Taken to the extreme, your vision is that poor people die off because of lack of access to medical care... but I guess thats the conservative way.... go back to a happier time in America... the 18th century.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf

2008 National Health Insurer Report Card (American Medical Association)

The purpose of the AMA’s National Health Insurer Report Card (NHIRC) is to provide physicians and the general public a reliable and defensible source of critical metrics concerning the timeliness, transparency and accuracy of claims processing by the health insurance companies that are responsible for paying these claims…

I suspect many readers will be surprised by this data because they might have thought that overall claims denial was much higher, across all insurers. And, many would also be surprised that Medicare was the highest insurer for claims denied. The next highest was very close — Aetna at 6.8%. However, the average for all private insurers on this chart was 3.89%, including Aetna. That’s just a bit more than half of the Medicare rate for claims denial.

The fact that Medicare denies more claims than commercial insurers should dispel the myth that the government is simply a benevolent entity, while commercial insurers are ruthless, profit-hungry wolves…

Are you government-worshipping fools starting to understand how this will work.... I mean NOT work?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Repeal 'em GOP'ers find out how life is after declining their Gov't run healthcar

And you avoid the point.. so selling insurance with significantly less regulation (i.e. the insurers really dont need to cover the sick people) a better idea?

I can tell you its a great thing for healthy people... much much cheaper.
Its worthless for high risk people - those that are or are likely to get sick.

So if you want to make health insurance pointless, sell across state lines with loose regulation. No one will like the outcome of that, and that wont solve any problems with our health care system... it will only exacerbate it.

Its tough to treat health care as a pure free market issue... because in a free market, you can always refuse a good. In health care, you really cant refuse lifesaving treatment (at least, not if you want to have a society that doesnt resemble somethng from the 13th century)

So you admit that the problem is COST... Is anything more expensive than government? Maybe if government instead of stealing 50% of my money they only stole 25%, you might be surprised what people could afford.