Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2018, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Aside from the fact these are bushy tailed estimates and based on assumptions that offering paid healthcare for millions without healthcare won't result in greater use of healthcare (more spending), it double counts some spending. The spending today includes your deductibles, co-pays, and premiums. The total for medicare overlooks that there would still be deductibles, co-pays, and premiums. Medicare is not cost-free to recipients.
That estimate is based on a study from a Koch bros study whose goal was to portray the idea as a very expensive one. Ironically it proved we would actually save money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2018, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13771
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO View Post
And that was because McConnell refused to even consider any court pick Obama made. You remember how absurd that was? Good, centralist jurists dismissed because Obama bad. It was his stated policy.

We can go back and forth a long way like this.

I agree though, I knew when that was done that we were on the wrong side of it for the same reason you think so. But remember, we excluded the SC from the nuclear option. McConnell changed that to get even.

RBG looks to be very sick, and she may just give trump his third SCOTUS pick, and there will be nothing the dems can do to stop it. All because Reid went nuclear. Unless we vote out the people who do this crap, and stop electing senator's for life, things will only keep getting more partisan, i fear.


Would repealing the 17th amendment be a solution, I think it just might be our only option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2018, 03:04 PM
 
8,050 posts, read 3,619,484 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
We already know that's true by merely looking at the cosmetic surgery industry. Elective. Not covered by health insurance. They have to compete for patients/clients on the basis of cost/benefit.



Do I need to elaborate, or it is pretty clear? Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2020, 12:48 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,669 posts, read 7,542,298 times
Reputation: 14942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
Prior to the ACA my state had an insurance pool for people with pre-existing conditions. My insurance company rep and I briefly discussed putting one of my children on it.

It wasn't cheap.
Now the Fed Govt is discussing putting 330,000,000 people in it. Or one like it.

It'll be even less cheap.

It was the primary reason for the failure of Obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2020, 07:14 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,423,185 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
The better question is.. why are we so stupid as to only have private for-profit insurance companies as the gatekeepers to healthcare access?

What are the people with prior cancer bouts, diabetes, blood pressure, other genetic conditions supposed to do - just die? According to insurance companies - whose business model is basically to take premiums from healthy people but avoid payouts when people actually need healthcare - that is the rational conclusion. That may make business sense for them, but it doesn't make moral or common sense for the humans in the healthcare process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2020, 07:34 PM
 
Location: New York City
19,061 posts, read 12,663,410 times
Reputation: 14781
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
The better question is.. why are we so stupid as to only have private for-profit insurance companies as the gatekeepers to healthcare access?

What are the people with prior cancer bouts, diabetes, blood pressure, other genetic conditions supposed to do - just die? According to insurance companies - whose business model is basically to take premiums from healthy people but avoid payouts when people actually need healthcare - that is the rational conclusion. That may make business sense for them, but it doesn't make moral or common sense for the humans in the healthcare process.
Nobody dies in America, everyone who needs treatment gets it. The problem is people without insurance get the bill and can lose all their assets, but they will get the treatment

The issue is not finding the money to pay for it, it's how high the price is. Healthcare providers are profit centers run by cut throat business people, not medical professionals. They are hostage takers demanding ransom. Instead of trying to come up with money for the ransom, we need to be squeezing them to lower costs across the board like they do in Japan on medical equipment costs and like Canada where they group negotiate for pharmaceutical costs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2020, 07:45 PM
 
9,895 posts, read 9,538,790 times
Reputation: 10084
I think Trump signed an Exec Order that says insurance must pay pre-existing conditions. He talked about it today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2020, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
31,848 posts, read 17,543,036 times
Reputation: 29384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO View Post
I think Trump signed an Exec Order that says insurance must pay pre-existing conditions. He talked about it today.
I think pre-existing conditions have been covered since ACA was implemented.

This thread is 8 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2020, 08:14 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,784 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
The better question is.. why are we so stupid as to only have private for-profit insurance companies as the gatekeepers to healthcare access?

What are the people with prior cancer bouts, diabetes, blood pressure, other genetic conditions supposed to do - just die? According to insurance companies - whose business model is basically to take premiums from healthy people but avoid payouts when people actually need healthcare - that is the rational conclusion. That may make business sense for them, but it doesn't make moral or common sense for the humans in the healthcare process.
The answer: FDR.

To understand why we have the health insurance system we have today, you need to know the history.

Employer-provided health care insurance resulted from FDR's Executive Order wage and salary freeze nearly 80 years ago. Employer's couldn't raise wages to attract and keep competent workers, so they began offering employment benefits like health insurance to circumvent FDR's Executive Order wage and salary freeze.

Ever since then, employer-provided health care insurance has been popular. It's a win/win for employers AND employees. Employers get the tax deduction for the cost as a business expense (part of the cost of labor), and it's a nontaxable form of compensation for employees. Suffice it to say... Employee-provided health care insurance will never be eradicated. Way too many businesses and employees are against doing so.

The Real Reason the US Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance - NY Times

You know, employer-provided health care insurance is popular in Canada, too, where 2/3 of the Canadian population have it. They're supplemental policies that cover what Canadian health care doesn't like prescription meds, mental health care, medical devices/equipment, vision, dental, hearing, etc. In fact, many countries that have National Health Care (NHC) have that type of a hybrid system. NHC covers a basic minimum of health care, and private health insurance to cover what NHC doesn't is purchased or earned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2020, 08:23 AM
 
Location: My house
7,252 posts, read 3,446,495 times
Reputation: 7628
I think we are confusing healthcare with insurance. I think these are two different things and should be treated as such
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top