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.
That's Wealth Redistribution in Liberal-Speak --- you can find the definition in Stalin's New-Liberal Dictionary.
The lie that you are told, is that "pooling" reduces the cost of insurance.
That is a lie for several reasons.
The cost of health care is determined by the American Hospital Association and its member-hospitals via the hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices well-above what the Free Market has established.
The "health insurance" companies which are legally not insurance companies --- that would be more Liberal New-Speak --- have no say in the prices the hospitals illegally collude to illegally fix. The Free Market says that in at least one of the 1,539 separate functioning economies in the US (namely Cincinnati), the true, real, actual, genuine, bona fide cost of open-heart surgery for a simple valve implant is $13,000 yet the illegal hospital cartels have illegally colluded to illegally fix the price at $26,000 to $41,000....
....and somehow, "health insurance" companies are to blame, and the solutions is....
....(drum-roll please)...
...single-payer....or universal health like Canada where people die waiting for procedures, or national health systems like Britain and Sweden where people die waiting for operations they never get, since the governments insist upon spending less than what health actually costs.
Exactly how does "single-payer" cause the illegal hospital cartels to stop illegally colluding to illegally fix prices?
That has to be the "Question of the Century."
The US Supreme Court says there is no such thing as "health insurance" in the US.
What you have is a fee-for-service arrangement.
The reason you do, is because the American Hospital Association lobbied Congress and the IRS to change the IRS Tax Code in 1954 --- and those changes remain in the 1986 Tax Code Reforms -- so that the Blue Cross ---- then owned by the American Hospital Association --- could gain an unfair competitive advantage over real insurance companies.....with the end result being you all pay more than you should.
According to the Principles of Actuarial Science, "pooling" doesn't always work, and when it does work, it works when insurance companies perform actuarial functions and group people together statistically --- and pooling may reduce the cost of the insurance company to gather and maintain statistical data....
....but that has no bearing on the price of open-heart surgery.....the illegal hospital cartels will still illegally collude to illegally fix prices.
For those of you who wish to start killing threads about this nonsense...here's you're nuke....
DEFINITIONS
Pooling is a risk-management process under which similar actuarial risks are combined.
The definition of pooling does not imply that it will always be beneficial.
Source: PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL SCIENCE Mark Allaben, Christopher Diamantoukos, Arnold Dicke, Sam Gutterman, Stuart Klugman, Richard Lord, Warren Luckner, Robert Miccolis, Joseph Tan Copyright 2008 by the Society of Actuaries.
4.2 PRINCIPLE (Pooling). If the actuarial risk associated with a risk classification system displays statistical regularity, it is possible to combine risk classes so as to ensure that there is an actuarial model associated with the new set of risk classes that is valid within a specified degree of accuracy DISCUSSION. It is clear from Principle 4.2 that there is a trade-off between pooling and homogeneity in insurance systems. Moreover, increased homogeneity generally leads to increased cost of information. . . .The ability to make such temporary distinctions (based on current health status, etc.) is useful, because it decreases the degree of uncertainty regarding current status and allows insureds to be charged more appropriate initial considerations. Thus, the knowledge that all members of a class had
normal blood pressure on a certain day might allow that class to be offered lower considerations for life and health insurance.
Source: TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES, Vol XLIV
Too bad, so sad.
So, it doesn't lower the cost of health care, and it certainly doesn't lower the price of monthly premiums. What it does do is cause a massive shift of Wealth from the young people to the leeches and blood-suckers.
You get robbed, because some dolt with Type II Diabetes, Hyper-Tension and a dozen other self-created medical problems is too damn lazy to get up off the couch and go walk 20 minutes per day.
Principally...
Mircea
My long winded friend is right on the money. The expansion of coverage isn't tantamount to cost savings. The ACA just represents another federally induced misallocation of resources.
My long winded friend is right on the money. The expansion of coverage isn't tantamount to cost savings. The ACA just represents another federally induced misallocation of resources.
That's only true because of ideology. The better plan would be Medicare for all, since Medicare controls costs better than private insurance. However, the insurance lobby is powerful and wouldn't allow that to happen.
When Mass. implemented Romneycare, it experienced the same phenomena.
The state tracked that an individual visited the state website an average of 8 times before buying insurance. The masses waited until the last minute to buy insurance. Most people are not eager to pay a bill months before it's due.
Doesn't the ACA need a lot of young people signing up for it to work? So was it a good idea to allow young people to stay on their parent's plans up to age 26? These people need to be getting their own private insurance,right?
At the time ACA became law, 37 states had their own laws about the maximum time and conditions associated with adult children remaining on their parent's policy. Of these states, age 25 was the most common. A handful of states went to age 30-31. ACA set a minimum age. Those state that allowed for longer periods were free to continue to do so.
According to the Census, there are about 45 million people between the ages of 19-29 and nearly 1/3 do not have healthcare insurance. Those who are self-employed in rural areas are the most vulnerable. The distribution of young populations is not consistent on a state to state basis, let alone within state. This was one of the reasons why Hillarycare proposed regional exchanges to better blend risk pools across state lines. Regional exchanges were one of the many objections to Hillarycare, back when and why ACA chose state based exchanges.
Why would young people sign up for their own policy rather than jumping on their own parents plans? The whole idea of needing young people to sign up to pay for a program to give welfare to others, while incentivizing them to not sign up and join their parents plan, never made any sense to me.
37 states had their own laws relative to the maximum age an adult child could be carried on their parent's policy. Best I can tell, of these states age 25 was the most common age. A handful of states went to age 30-31.
Best I can tell this was in reaction to the 90% increase in the cost of healthcare insurance between 2000-2010.
The goal of ACA was to encourage young adults to become insured. Does it matter if they are on their parent's policy or their own?
What makes you think that parents aren't charging their kids the extra $
Doesnt matter even if thats true because that means the moneys going to the parents, not the federal government, thus there is nothign going to the federal government to support paying for the subsidies.
The goal of ACA was to encourage young adults to become insured. Does it matter if they are on their parent's policy or their own?
Once again, as it relates toTHIS THREAD... yes it does.. because the government was relying upon these individuals to pay into the government, to support paying the subsidies of others..
That's only true because of ideology. The better plan would be Medicare for all, since Medicare controls costs better than private insurance. However, the insurance lobby is powerful and wouldn't allow that to happen.
no it does not.. Medicare and medicaid contracts their services out to the private industry now, and has for quite some time.
Even the very liberal Sunday morning news commentary shows brought this issue up.
There seems to be a worry that those handful of people signing up are the very sickest people in dire need of expensive medical care but the young who really need to be paying in for all this medical care of the very sick are still on their parents' insurance.
They even said on these liberal news talk shows that most of those signing up are signing up for the Medicaid portion of obamacare. And those people will pay nothing.
Romneycare experienced the same initial reaction when it was implemented.
Romneycare also allowed a full year before the mandate became effective. Reportedly most of the previously uninsured who did not qualify for Medicaid,waited until the " last minute".
Does everyone understand that "sign up" means "enroll" to be able to apply for coverage?
None of these "sign up" people really know what their options are OR how much it is going to cost them.
No one has been able to buy and pay for insurance off the federal site.
The insurance does not become effective until 2014.
Even if they could, how many would pay for it 2-6 months before the bill was due?
For those who don't know the employer health are system was only for a temporary thing to entice people to work for the war effort. It was never intended to be how people received health care. Single payer is the only solution, and if Republicans did not have their head up their own rear end, they would guide that process so that co pays were used to stop welfare queens from taking one of their 12 kids by 12 daddies into the office to have a nurse wipe their nose. You know they would rather spend it on crack. LOL By having co pays it would keep abuse down because they would never waste their own cash. Or cash they got from the Fed. Gov. LOL. Single payer its the only way. May not be perfect but there is no perfect answer.
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.
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.
