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 07-04-2015, 07:21 AM
mm4 mm4 started this thread
 
5,711 posts, read 3,979,590 times
Reputation: 1941

Advertisements

Yet another progressive leftist incapacity to analyze reality exposed:

"Health insurance companies say new customers under the Affordable Care Act have been sicker than expected, while federal officials say they want the requests scaled back."

nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

Big rate increases. That was your jobs, Bozos. Meanwhile, another misguided concern of the ACA-championing progressive left falls--that of "preventive medicine":

"Overtesting has also created a new, unanticipated problem: overdiagnosis. This isn't misdiagnosis--the erroneous diagnosis of a disease. This is the correct diagnosis of a disease that is never going to bother you in your lifetime. We've long assumed that if we screen a healthy population for diseases like cancer or coronary-artery disease, and catch those diseases early, we'll be able to treat them before they get dangerously advanced, and save lives in large numbers. But it hasn't turned out that way. For instance, cancer screening with mammography, ultrasound, and blood testing has dramatically increased the detection of breast, thyroid, and prostate cancer during the past quarter century. We're treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have. Yet only a tiny reduction in death, if any, has resulted."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2015, 07:47 AM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,291,120 times
Reputation: 2739
ACA is working.

https://www.google.com/#q=aca+is+working
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
1,235 posts, read 1,769,667 times
Reputation: 1558
This so called "leftist" heath policy, the ACA, has preserved the for profit health insurance market.

To quote from the article you linked:
By contrast, Marinan R. Williams, chief executive of the Scott & White Health Plan in Texas, which is seeking a 32 percent rate increase, said the requests showed that “there was a real need for the Affordable Care Act. People are getting services they needed for a very long time,” Ms. Williams said. “There was a pent-up demand. Over the next three years, I hope, rates will start to stabilize.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:27 AM
pvs
 
1,845 posts, read 3,366,504 times
Reputation: 1538
Thanks leftists? I thought it was the right that fought single payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:34 AM
 
7,931 posts, read 9,156,295 times
Reputation: 9351
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvs View Post
Thanks leftists? I thought it was the right that fought single payer.
No, the insurance companies paid both parties off. Google 2008 campaign contributions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetLegal View Post
This so called "leftist" heath policy, the ACA, has preserved the for profit health insurance market.

To quote from the article you linked:
By contrast, Marinan R. Williams, chief executive of the Scott & White Health Plan in Texas, which is seeking a 32 percent rate increase, said the requests showed that “there was a real need for the Affordable Care Act. People are getting services they needed for a very long time,”[/b] Ms. Williams said. [b]“There was a pent-up demand. Over the next three years, I hope, rates will start to stabilize.
Hope and change? Stabilize after a 32 percent increase? What does that mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:50 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,747 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22590
Do you really expect anything less from a government program? How many times do you have to launch the Hindenburg and have it go down in flames before you know what is going to happen as you launch it?

Government "entitlement" programs, by definition, fleece the populace and provide far less than it was claimed they would, if anything of value at all. They are typically Ponzi schemes conjured up to make the malignant organism we call "government" a goodly amount of revenue before going down in flames... only to be replaced with another new-and-improved "Hindenburg."

Insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over, while expecting a different result. Coerced tyrannical collectivism always ends somewhere down the road in failure/bankruptcy. Think of the government as an abusive husband--"I promise it will be different this time, Sugarplum."

Sure it will. How many black eyes and missing teeth does it take for your light bulb to flicker on, Sugarplum? Or perhaps it's just burned out for good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,748,172 times
Reputation: 20674
From the NYT link:

" far from certain how many rate increases will hold up on review or how much they might change.

A study by Kaiser found consumers would see relatively modest increases in premiums if they were willing to switch plans"

Rates for healthcare insurance vary across the U.S., no different than auto, liability, home, renter and commercial insurance. The competitiveness or lack thereof, of the local healthcare market matters.

Premiums are a reflection of the cost of healthcare in any given market and the health of the people in that market. Most states allowed insurers to charge smokers a higher premium well before Obamacare and did so because it is a controllable healthcare risk.

70% of adults are overweight/ obese which increases the likelihood for Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and some cancers. We are the fattest people on earth and the cost of US healthcare reflects this.

No reason why normal weight people with fewer controllable healthcare risks should pay the same premiums as someone with greater controllable healthcare risks. In other words, you are free to smoke and/ or carry extra weight and pay higher premiums or take responsibility for your self.

The majority of people do not smoke and have no issue with smokers paying a higher premium. There's no reason the 70% who are overweight/ obese should not pay a higher premium because they control this risk. Waist size is a better indicater than pounds or BMI because as we all know, " it's all muscle".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,465,032 times
Reputation: 8599
This doesn't sound right.
The insurance companies are claiming they can't make money with $900 monthly premiums (gov't pays most or part) and $12,000 deductibles? These new clients must be really really sick if they go over their deductibles so fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,748,172 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10 View Post
No, the insurance companies paid both parties off. Google 2008 campaign contributions.
All profit special interest groups donate and lobby at the state and federal level it's as bipartisan as it gets.

Some countries with universial healthcare ( no two countries do universal healthcare the same way) forbid insurers from profiting off mandated healthcare insurance. Instead, insurers profit off supplemental insurance that covers what primary insurance does not.

In the U.S., not for profit corps are not precluded from profit. Some make $ hundreds of millions each year. They cannot however use profit to pay a dividend to shareholders. So instead, many not for profit hospitals and Cancer Treatment centers use their profits to advertise, destroy or acquire the competition, acquire medical practices with built in referral systems and quotas, expand and of course reward senior management for all their hard work including holding the line on employee wages

This is how we roll in the USA.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 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