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.
about 9 million people have LESS/no insurance thanks to obama making the recession into a depression
Off topic
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
I'm confuse those 19-23 could always be covered under their parents health insurance. Why was this age group included?
No, most ins. companies dumped kids at 18; 25 if a full-time student.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
ah but
the rate increase for single was less than the increase for family (as a percent)..therefore it is an increase (punishment)
You know this about my husband's insurance, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375
So 2.5 mill people who prolly dont have much of a need for it got it. And the rates went up.
Thats like celebrating that gas went up to 4$ a gallon , but your 7 yr old also gets all the free gas he can burn in his car.
"Prolly don't have much of a need"? No one is at zero risk!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
So the insurance company is going to insure additional people, pay their claims and almost no one is going to get a rate increase unless they just happened to be pushed from a no-kids category to a category with kids?
That's not how the calculation would work. EVERYONE purchasing a +kids option will see higher rates in order to absorb the additional insureds at a established loss ratio. Hypothetically there would be an offsetting savings via lower future claims inflation as the hospitals etc. would have fewer uninsured and uncollectible accounts.
Another one who knows what is going on at my husband's company with insurance. Yes, that is how it works for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You would have.
If you can pay $80,000 in Student Loans, you can pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can pay $250,000 for a McMansion, you can afford to pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can afford to buy a new car every 3 years, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
If you can afford bundled cable, internet and cell-phone service, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
Insurance is cheaper than that. You can get a family plan for $180/month. You obviously didn't look too hard.
It has nothing to do with inadequate access to health care.
I'm familiar with university insurance. I could characterize as many things, but "horrible" is not one of them. It is standard insurance, just like anything else.
Then you can pay for it, right?
Because you don't have the money.
You're making a Fallacy Argument, an Appeal to Emotion.
I always ask, "How much money should we spend on one person?"
Some people consider that obtuse, but it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is you don't have the money, you never did have the money and you never will have the money.
Suppose we allow $1 Million per person for health care.
That comes to $308 TRILLION.
Do you understand that your GDP is only $15 TRILLION.
Do you understand that paying $15 TRILLION per year it would take you 20 years to pay off $308 TRILLION?
Suppose we limited that to just half, only $500,000 worth of medical services per person in a life-time.
That's still $156 TRILLION.
So it would only take 10 years at $15 TRILLION per year, but that is impossible, because every single penny of your GDP would be spent on health care. So the only way you could pay $15 TRILLION per year is if you GDP was $30 TRILLION per year, except so long as health care is 50% of your GDP, your GDP will never get to $30 TRILLION per year.
You cannot possibly win. There are no set of circumstances that would ever possibly allow you to win.
I don't know if it was on this forum or another, but 4 years ago I said when health care and government are 50% of your GDP, that your economy would stagnate. Part of the key to recovery is cutting government 60% across the board at all levels. That not only means reducing spending by 60% across the board, it means firing nearly 2 out of 3 government employees at all levels. And it means capping health care costs.
Why? Because both government and health care are a poor use of Capital.
Instead of spending $200,000 on one person for health care, that money would be best used giving $10,000 to 20 people.
Instead of spending $200,000 on one person for health care, you'd be better off buying a packaging machine and hiring 12 people to run it.
"Warm and fuzzy" doesn't make an economy run.
It isn't that I'm trying to be mean and nasty, it's that there are certain realities, and no doubt there are many that would prefer to ignore those realities, but then that comes at a cost, and none of you can bear that cost, nor are you willing to do so.
Sorry, you are being mean and nasty. You know nothing about this person's finances. You and the rest that make these ass*umptions that all young people are buying McMansions, new cars every three years, bundled cable, internet and cell-phone service are totally out of touch with the reality of young adults.
University insurance is "bare-bones" for the most part, and you are calling this person a liar.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-14-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Any argument can be deemed strawman when made against one made from both ends. That is the case here. Having said that, I take the health care reform as something that should help in the longer term. The problem is with people like you complaining about now. As if nothing else matters... until you're questioned than you say... but I also said that.
I don't view pointing out the fact that expanding health coverage to 2.1million young adults required some people to pay more in premiums is *complaining*.
I've pointed out a lot of things about how mandated expanded basic healthcare may actually LOWER costs eventually as people like me are already paying these costs indirectly as hospitals write off uncollectible debts.
I'm merely refuting the wild eyed claims of "free healthcare" and loss controls and yes...that means not covering absolutely everything....will be mandatory in tackling enormous medical inflation costs.
i THINK YOU ARE WRONG. hEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE RAISING RATES AS MUCH S THEY LEGALLY CAN UNTIL 2014. darn caps! sorry. Blue Cross tried a big increase in Ca.and had to retract it.
Let's see the proof of how you are right.
I can't even follow what part of my post you felt was wrong.
Of course a for-profit company is going to try to maximize profits subject to competition and regulatory constraints etc etc.
You even point out that CA denied BC a rate increase.
For giggles what do you think BC's filed profit margin is? Now go google their rate filing, it's public record after all.
I don't view pointing out the fact that expanding health coverage to 2.1million young adults required some people to pay more in premiums is *complaining*.
Doesn't this apply to anybody with kids, or more kids? Does each kid add $5K to the total premium that everybody must now pay?
Quote:
I've pointed out a lot of things about how mandated expanded basic healthcare may actually LOWER costs eventually as people like me are already paying these costs indirectly as hospitals write off uncollectible debts.
We agree on that.
Quote:
I'm merely refuting the wild eyed claims of "free healthcare" and loss controls and yes...that means not covering absolutely everything....will be mandatory in tackling enormous medical inflation costs.
Very complicated issue.
It is complicated indeed. It is why I thought one of the arguments made against HCR was that it covered 2000 pages. We could certainly simplify from that mess, however. But, there is no such thing as "free health care". People pay one way or the other. The key should be, to ensure that we pay more towards health care, ALONG with finding ways to reduce health care costs as well as pharmaceutical costs.
You left out the part where my insurance premiums increased to pay for this.
So, forgive me if I don't stand up and cheer for this magical "free" medical coverage you are describing....except if I worked for a health insurer that just got increased premium volume (and profits) due to the mandate.
Anyway, this is how an independent "spins" your proclamation of success.
Got any rebuttal for that?
Most of those that got covered are those people that idiots call "children", you know, the ones who can be covered under their parents' policies until they are 26.
Most of those that got covered are those people that idiots call "children", you know, the ones who can be covered under their parents' policies until they are 26.
Should the spouse also get their own policy too? After all, you don't see a family as a functioning unit but defined by "age".
About 2.5 million young people have received health insurance coverage as a result of health care reform measures that President Barack Obama signed into law last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday.
About 2.5 million more people, aged 19 to 25, have health insurance than had it before the law took effect because of a provision that lets young adults remain on their parents' insurance plans through age 26, the agency's National Center for Health Statistics said.
"Moms and dads around the country can breathe a little easier knowing their children are covered," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
Obama signed the health care reform measure into law in March 2010.
Young adults have traditionally been the age group least likely to have health insurance, the Department of Health and Human Services said.
The policy extending dependent coverage up to age 26 took effect for plan renewals beginning in September 2010.
The new estimates show that by June 2011, the percentage of insured young people in that age group rose from 64% to 73%, HHS said. Based on census figures, that percentage change equates to about 2.5 million young people, the agency said.
Aside from traffic accidents which is the leading cause of death (and presumably injury) for this age group, there is very little reason why they would need to see a doctor. Oh, yes, you will have the odd one who will come down with Leukemia or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma or have some complications to their diabetes, but overwhelmingly, this age group tends to be the healthiest....maybe.
The fact of the matter is that this age group is *very* prone to "emotional" disorders. It is no secret that anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds, etc., makes up a HUGE amount of the money that big pharma collects on an annual basis, and this percentage is growing exponentially on a daily basis. What is particularly interesting is that many of these medications are EXTREMELY difficult to get off of, once you are on them. Ask anybody who has been on Cymbalta what a person has to go through to get off of it.
It appears that with the increase of 2.5 million young people now getting health insurance, the pharmaceutical companies stand to gain BILLIONS in the sale of anti-depressants, etc., for many, many, many years to come.
Funny, but every time I ask someone to step up their game and show me the math, they run away.
Sometimes reality is mean and nasty. That isn't my fault.
There are 42 mandates in the pipeline coming from the Ivory Tower at HHS (as of September). I'd have to look at the Federal Register to see if the Wizards in their Ivory White Tower at HHS have issued any new edicts. And who knows how many more edicts they will issue between now and December 2014 (and afterward).
These mandates are not free. Someone has to pay for them.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
You know nothing about this person's finances. You and the rest that make these ass*umptions that all young people are buying McMansions, new cars every three years, bundled cable, internet and cell-phone service are totally out of touch with the reality of young adults.
I didn't say he had to pay all $200,000 now. He has the rest of his life to pay it off. If he has to live in an 8' x 10' room at a boarding house to do that, then let's hope it has carpet and free cable.
Why should I pay for someone else's health care so they can have a McMansion and a car and cable when I don't have any of that (and can't afford it)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
University insurance is "bare-bones" for the most part, and you are calling this person a liar.
I had university insurance up until about 6 years ago.
Even though I'm covered by the VA health care system, the University of Cincinnati in its infinite wisdom decided I should have to pay for student health "insurance," because I didn't actually pay for the VA medical care, which they did not consider to be "insurance."
So I got billed for it and fought with the bursar, and eventually went to Congressman Chabot's office and one of his staffers made a few phone calls and that was the end of it, and I got back all the money the university stole from me (and they stopped billing me).
So I know exactly what university health care is, and it is exactly whatever your State mandates for basic coverage, so it is the same as everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
I can't even follow what part of my post you felt was wrong.
Of course a for-profit company is going to try to maximize profits subject to competition and regulatory constraints etc etc.
You even point out that CA denied BC a rate increase.
For giggles what do you think BC's filed profit margin is? Now go google their rate filing, it's public record after all.
I will guess.......
Spoiler
5%
Wow, a whole 5%. Freaking retail grocery does better than that at 10%.
Ooops! I guess people will be demanding "food insurance" now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
My premiums went down ... only by a very small amount, but in the 37 years I've had this plan (and it has changed considerably in that time, for the better), I think this might be only the second time my premiums didn't go up.
Well, "health insurance" is not interstate commerce.
Each State has its own rules and regulations concerning "health insurance" and what must be covered and so on, so rates will vary and change, but over time as more and more mandates are added, the cost invariably goes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Interesting you believe in magic like tht. I don't.
I was being facetious.
It is the Liberals who believe the Money Fairy and her magic will save them all. When they're living in a cardboard box eating mud, they just might stop believing in the magical Money Fairy. Maybe. They'll probably blame Conservatives for deporting the Money Fairy as an illegal immigrant.
Most of those that got covered are those people that idiots call "children", you know, the ones who can be covered under their parents' policies until they are 26.
Every time someone says this I am going to call them on it. Most of these young adults are in school, or in entry level jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
Aside from traffic accidents which is the leading cause of death (and presumably injury) for this age group, there is very little reason why they would need to see a doctor. Oh, yes, you will have the odd one who will come down with Leukemia or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma or have some complications to their diabetes, but overwhelmingly, this age group tends to be the healthiest....maybe.
The fact of the matter is that this age group is *very* prone to "emotional" disorders. It is no secret that anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds, etc., makes up a HUGE amount of the money that big pharma collects on an annual basis, and this percentage is growing exponentially on a daily basis. What is particularly interesting is that many of these medications are EXTREMELY difficult to get off of, once you are on them. Ask anybody who has been on Cymbalta what a person has to go through to get off of it.
It appears that with the increase of 2.5 million young people now getting health insurance, the pharmaceutical companies stand to gain BILLIONS in the sale of anti-depressants, etc., for many, many, many years to come.
Damn clever of them, I'd say.
20yrsinBranson
So you have, I believe, zero kids and you are not a health care practitioner (that I am aware of) and yet you know all this?
The fact that these people ARE fairly healthy as a group means that insuring them is not that expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Then show us the numbers.
Funny, but every time I ask someone to step up their game and show me the math, they run away.
Sometimes reality is mean and nasty. That isn't my fault.
There are 42 mandates in the pipeline coming from the Ivory Tower at HHS (as of September). I'd have to look at the Federal Register to see if the Wizards in their Ivory White Tower at HHS have issued any new edicts. And who knows how many more edicts they will issue between now and December 2014 (and afterward).
These mandates are not free. Someone has to pay for them.
Just thought I'd point that out.
I didn't say he had to pay all $200,000 now. He has the rest of his life to pay it off. If he has to live in an 8' x 10' room at a boarding house to do that, then let's hope it has carpet and free cable.
Why should I pay for someone else's health care so they can have a McMansion and a car and cable when I don't have any of that (and can't afford it)?
I had university insurance up until about 6 years ago.
Even though I'm covered by the VA health care system, the University of Cincinnati in its infinite wisdom decided I should have to pay for student health "insurance," because I didn't actually pay for the VA medical care, which they did not consider to be "insurance."
So I got billed for it and fought with the bursar, and eventually went to Congressman Chabot's office and one of his staffers made a few phone calls and that was the end of it, and I got back all the money the university stole from me (and they stopped billing me).
So I know exactly what university health care is, and it is exactly whatever your State mandates for basic coverage, so it is the same as everyone else.
Wow, a whole 5%. Freaking retail grocery does better than that at 10%.
Ooops! I guess people will be demanding "food insurance" now.
Well, "health insurance" is not interstate commerce.
Each State has its own rules and regulations concerning "health insurance" and what must be covered and so on, so rates will vary and change, but over time as more and more mandates are added, the cost invariably goes up.
I was being facetious.
It is the Liberals who believe the Money Fairy and her magic will save them all. When they're living in a cardboard box eating mud, they just might stop believing in the magical Money Fairy. Maybe. They'll probably blame Conservatives for deporting the Money Fairy as an illegal immigrant.
You are making ass*umptions about this person's lifestyle, even after she explained it after you attacked her the first time. I'm really sick of posters who like to diss all people who don't have health ins. by saying they're buying McMansions, driving fancy late-model cars, using huge amounts of cable, internet and cell phone services, etc. Those are strawman arguments.
Some people dont have ins because they are willing to take the risk themselves. Thats all ins is , assumed risk.
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.
