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.
More money going out than money coming in. Not necessary "more medical treatment".
Call me silly, but wouldn't (shouldn't) that be the main expense in a health insurance company's balance sheet? Surely it's not overhead, what with the efficiency of private companies and all.
Quote:
And companies cannot operate year after year with a loss.
Call me silly, but wouldn't (shouldn't) that be the main expense in a health insurance company's balance sheet? Surely it's not overhead, what with the efficiency of private companies and all.
Good thing they're not operating at a loss, then.
Risk pools...more healthy people to offset the more sickly people.
Obamacare got rid of that. Too many sick people signed up and not enough healthy people.
The FedGov promised the insurers bailouts with risk corridor and reinsurance.
So the FedGov and insurers knew going in that it was extremely risky.
The government set the ratio to 80/20 with the promise of bailout if insurers didn't make their 20.
One insurer that I read had 115/0.
The bill that the insurers presented to HHS for not making their 80/20 was $2.6 billion dollars.
Risk pools...more healthy people to offset the more sickly people.
Obamacare got rid of that. Too many sick people signed up and not enough healthy people.
The FedGov promised the insurers bailouts with risk corridor and reinsurance.
So the FedGov and insurers knew going in that it was extremely risky.
Pardon me for not feeling sorry for them if their business model is based on providing health care funding for those who aren't sick. Their profits look quite sound from where I'm sitting.
Then get people, maybe yourself included, (certainly not moi), off their fat azzes, moving, taking in fewer carbs, cutting out refined foods, not smoking, moderate to minimal alcohol, zero on the street and pharmaceutical drug abuse = Terrific health outcomes. Simple. And requires zero government intervention. Zero.
I'll bet you also believe GMO's are terrific... right?
There's rarely not a contradictory poster in these forums.
Pardon me for not feeling sorry for them if their business model is based on providing health care funding for those who aren't sick. Their profits look quite sound from where I'm sitting.
Well I guess you're not sitting in the right seat
Americans are the sickest bunch of people in the entire world.
60% of Americans are on prescription drugs.
The US uses more prescription drugs than all other countries combined.
And most of our chronic illnesses are lifestyle illnesses.
Rather than change your lifestyle you get put on pills.
Health insurance risk pools used to be no different than other insurance.
Higher risk people either pay higher premiums or they get refused.
Obamacare got rid of that for health insurance.
So everyone pays the same share. Premiums will just have to be increased to cover the additional costs for the sicker people.
Since more sick signed up than healthy the premiums will have to be adjusted.
And you see that with premium increase projections of 20-50% across the nation.
Originally Posted by steven_h
Of course they did! All the insurance companies did, and do. They were the ones who created the damn thing! They expected to tie the hands of their rolls, funneling in millions of new customers (by force) and billions in subsidies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And Congress was only too willing to say yes.
And then HHS set up the accounts...risk corridor and reinsurance.
And Rubio closed the loophole for the bailouts.
It's undeniable the collusion between the big pharma, HC, insurance lobbies and politicians on both sides. Though in this case, the RNC were locked out of the entire process. THIS MESS rests squarely on the DNC, and rather than admit they screwed us it's better to attack those who wish to fix it. Again, SNAFU
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Americans are the sickest bunch of people in the entire world.
60% of Americans are on prescription drugs.
The US uses more prescription drugs than all other countries combined.
And most of our chronic illnesses are lifestyle illnesses.
Rather than change your lifestyle you get put on pills.
It's no wonder our costs are high and rising.
It's true that we indulge far too much. But we are very low on the per capita for alcohol and tobacco consumption verses other "heathier" countries. You have to see the correlation of food science to our health degrading. The same year that GMO's were deemed safe (by Monsanto and DuPont's private labs) the rates of all diseases (some that were almost wiped out) have been increasing across the board. Just maybe the combination of high consumption of the foods they've "invented" has more to do with the problems we now face.
If you were an oligarch of the wealthiest people on earth who wanted to dismantle (change) the population of the earth, what would be the first thing you'd go after? Food - The side benefit is that all the big-pharma and HC players would make a killing in the process. A win win.
Originally Posted by steven_h
Of course they did! All the insurance companies did, and do. They were the ones who created the damn thing! They expected to tie the hands of their rolls, funneling in millions of new customers (by force) and billions in subsidies.
It's undeniable the collusion between the big pharma, HC, insurance lobbies and politicians on both sides. Though in this case, the RNC were locked out of the entire process. THIS MESS rests squarely on the DNC, and rather than admit they screwed us it's better to attack those who wish to fix it. Again, SNAFU
Insurance wrote the bill.
Big pharma dealt directly with Obama.
And when the bill got passed Baucus' assistant that authored the bill went back to working in the health industry.
Revolving door of government/business.
Elizabeth Fowler.
Lobbyist for Wellpoint.
Became chief health policy counsel for Baucus and helped draft the bill.
Obamacare passed.
Now she's a VP for Johnson & Johnson.
That's like saying you dissagree with those who also see it as "an incoherent law" passed by "corrupt people in their party who capitulated to lobbying from hospital organizations and health insurers"
I mean for goodness sake, aren't bad laws the very thing that should be stopped?I "get" what you're implying, and even agree with you to some extent... but sometimes it's best to put a horse with a broken leg out of its misery, and get a new one.
The ACA has been a broken dysfunctional law from the start. Baically, all it did was throw everyone out of their long held plans, force them into high deductible plans to pay for the millions thrown into Medicaid. It was the long way around to a costly Medicaid expansion, and the pig was dressed up like a showgirl to sell it.
I think "Repealing Obamacare" is like saying you want a new airplane while in mid-flight
Unless the person proposing repeal is incredibly specific about precisely what the new system will look like, I'm going to view that proposal with extreme skepticism, and assume it is more about partisan politics than actual healthcare.
They should have just expanded medicaid and added premiums for those above poverty level.
That would have taken care of all those people that wanted insurance but couldn't afford it.
And it would have left everyone else alone.
And that was my opinion going way back to 2008.
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.
