- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does the healthcare debate essentially revolve around like 4% of Americans?
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:53 am to culsutiger
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:53 am to culsutiger
That's why you need a prex clause in individual health policies.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 9:55 am
0
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:54 am to Tigerdev
Instead of screwing up the entire insurance market for everyone, people with true major chronic health issues should have just been put on Medicare or Medicaid.
If the government is subsidizing anyway, they should've just straight up insured the bottom 10 percent and left everyone else alone
If the government is subsidizing anyway, they should've just straight up insured the bottom 10 percent and left everyone else alone
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:55 am to Bjorn Cyborg
But then they couldn't virtue signal.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 9:56 am
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:59 am to Covingtontiger77
quote:
***News flash*** insurance companies are private entities in the business to MAKE money for themselves and their shareholders. Why would they not charge more for people that are going to cost them more? It's simple economics and capitalism. If you have a problem with this than maybe you set up a federal healthcare system that covers all of those with pre existing conditions and leave the healthy horses to still buy their insurance privately.***
*** we already have a safety net for the poor called Medicaid. Just expand the eligibility to cover those with preexisting conditions that the private sector doesn't want on their books regardless of income level ( high and low).
As far as that goes, Congress COULD pass a simple law. "Health insurance companies may not charge for for health insurance based on pre existing conditions" without allowing those companies to essentially bill the government for the preexisting conditions. Free market or not, would anyone other than insurance company stock holders REALLY give a frick if insurance companies took it on the chin a little when it came to the probably 2% of policy holders who have preexisting conditions that they had to cover without any extra revenue? Of course this would also have required that we differentiate from people who actually have preexisting conditions from those fricks who choose not to have any insurance until they get sick then they rush in and expect cheap insurance to cover them. frick those people.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:00 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Because women are allowed to vote, and hold office.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:01 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
You can't cover that 2% without extra revenue. That's the problem. Dems would love your idea because it would bankrupt insurance companies and mommy government would have to step in and save the day. No thanks.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:05 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Look, I have sympathy for those with pre-existing conditions, but why must they get priority over the 85%+ of Americans who simply want lower premiums and costs?
Healthcare reform should be based on helping the most people lower their costs, rather than helping a select few at the expense of all others
Exactly. This is why you can't allow entitlements, because once the left gets their nose in the tent there is really no going back. They will wail about "30 million Americans will LITERALLY DIE ON THE STREETS NOW!"
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:13 am to fjlee90
quote:
in order to grow big govt.
The point of this has never been to provide health care to everybody. It's been to nationalize health care by any means necessary.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:14 am to roadGator
quote:
You can't cover that 2% without extra revenue. That's the problem. Dems would love your idea because it would bankrupt insurance companies and mommy government would have to step in and save the day. No thanks.
bullshite
and no Democrats wouldn't love my idea or else they would have done it. Democrats have fooled you, they don't give a shite about making insurance affordable for the poor. They give a shite about putting government money in the hands of the insurance companies which is exactly what the ACA did.
As for my suggestion, your excuse is the same as some use for minimum wage increases. "These companies can't afford it" bullshite. They don't want to afford it. Now of course , there is a tipping point where it is not affordable, but this isn't it.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:17 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers that back up your claims.
Not allowing higher premiums would indeed bankrupt insurance company.
There enough proof out there for you to see that.
Heck, my own parent company lost $500 million in one year alone. We are a not for profit.
Not allowing higher premiums would indeed bankrupt insurance company.
There enough proof out there for you to see that.
Heck, my own parent company lost $500 million in one year alone. We are a not for profit.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:20 am to roadGator
Ha i didnt downvote you. And dont be silly. Medical costs make your argument impossible to make. Without insurance treatment simple isnt financially feasible in many cases.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:20 am to culsutiger
quote:
You could just wait until you do get sick then get on medicaid and have the government pay for it.
That would depend on the definition of preexisting condition. Some genetic disorders? fine. Rot your liver from alcohol or other drugs, etc, not so much.
What conditions, in your opinion, should not be considered a preexisting condition?
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:21 am to Bjorn Cyborg
If Obama had done what you are suggesting you would still be ravenously looking for a repeal.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:22 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Its a good thing the "Needs of the Few" wasn't the political calling card in the 40's
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:25 am to Tigerdev
It's not insurance if you force companies to buy claims.
The government doesn't have to solve this. Liberals and Progs can do this alone if they choose. Set up a charity. Allow those with prex to apply for grants to cover additional premium costs.
No need for mommy government to grow.
I'd then not to have to sacrifice for causes I care about. You get to donate for a cause you apparently care deeply about. Everyone wins.
The government doesn't have to solve this. Liberals and Progs can do this alone if they choose. Set up a charity. Allow those with prex to apply for grants to cover additional premium costs.
No need for mommy government to grow.
I'd then not to have to sacrifice for causes I care about. You get to donate for a cause you apparently care deeply about. Everyone wins.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 10:26 am
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:28 am to TigerDoc
quote:
The whole point of insurance is mitigating risk. Any of us can develop a new serious health problem at any time. The protections protect all of us from the risk of being uninsurable in the future
There is a way to fix that without this retardation of risk mitigation forced by Obamacare.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:34 am to roadGator
quote:
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers that back up your claims.
There are no numbers because it's never been tried.
And it's quite obvious that if we chose my route. Made insurances just eat the extra cost with no government money, we would also have to ensure that plenty of healthy people were buying health insurance too.
I actually part ways with conservatories who don't believe the government should be able to make people buy health insurance . The government makes people buy auto insurance. If they didn't , those who did choose to have insurance would see their rates double. Or maybe even quadruple, who knows how much they would increase, but they would certainly increase. SO therefor we can infer that doubling or tripling the number of people who have health insurance would result in a decrease in premium overall.
That's precisely why the ACA has failed. Many many healthy young people are just paying the fines rather than buying insurance. Simple solution. Automatic payroll deduction for the health insurance of your choice. For the shite bags who just won't work, not much can be done about them. For the ones who can't work, medicaid and medicare are already being used.
IF this is the route we want to take that is, which I'm not sold 100% either way on.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:36 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
The government makes people buy auto insurance
Weird. I lived in Boston and New York for 4 years and didn't have car insurance. Suprised I wasn't a fugitive from the law.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 10:37 am
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:37 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
There are no numbers because it's never been tried.
Do you trust me?
You can't insure the uninsured and those with prex conditions without charging higher premiums.
Not everyone is forced to purchase car insurance. An existence tax seems awful.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 10:38 am
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:41 am to notsince98
quote:
Seems like charities should be more than capable of handling the 4%.
it is the mindset that it is the government's responsibility that needs to be washed from this country.
That's another problem the Democrats created...by their own actions...they made charities less effective. More charities are going under or don't have the donations because people can't afford to give as much to the charities because of Healthcare cost due to ACA mandates.(BC/BS raised rates to cover the ACA mandates..and my check is less as a result).
Page 2 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News