Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Aug 2, 2013.
I would really like to know.
dadx4, you know how insurance works right?
spread the risk?
New math? Use Accountants who used to be city of Detroit employees? Have the CBO trump up your #s?
Obviously you cannot. The 30 M people without health insurance ain't gonna go out and buy it due to a $95 fine. They can't afford it or choose to go without. It is logic. Libbies are not logical. It is blowing up before their eyes after Billion$ have been spent.
And this is Obama's legacy. Figures. The Titanic of Legislation.
Only if you can get the 30 M to pay what we pay...which is about 1350 month for a family of 3. You honestly think that will happen?
in spite of 108 and his socialist views think- you cannot
no, but it will get paid regardless though insurance and subsidies, rather then in the ER
Apparently you start by exempting members of Congress and their aides.
Stop and think about what you just said. We are paying for their healthcare now....if they need it, because they show up at the emergency room and get treated for a cold. Or in worst cases, get shot by a gangbanger and show up in an ambulance.
So if the insurance company, (who needs to make some profit) now has to pay for these things, how does that lower the cost? Because someone has to pay for the insurance right? And who will that be? The patient? The government (which is the taxpayers)? The poor black gang member? Or will it be the taxpayers (government) and those who buy insurance who will now pay more per person? If you guessed the last answer...YOU WOULD BE CORRECT!!!
And since even government actuaries know this is unlikely to happen (non insured buying their own without government assistance) as do the insurance companies and they realize people who can't afford to buy insurance will only buy it the month they need it, the rest of us get soaked because our premiums rise to make up the pot of money necessary to fund it.
108, do you buy your own insurance? Are you on your parents plan? Do you get through a company? If any of the above....SOMEONES PREMIUMS ARE GOING UP. Maybe you don't care about that but the person paying the bill will.
If the 30 million are presumably healthier than the current risk pool then they should lower the premium. Now when you force the insurer to pay for large known losses that kind of destroys that persumption IMO...
And if they could pay their own tab...and that ain't happening.
And to the people ignorant enough to think young healthy people would flock to the chance to pay $10, $12, $15k a year in premiums to pay for anti-actuarial coverage for the old, poor, or chronically sick in lieu of a $100 (lol) "tax", it probably sounded like pure genius.
The truth is we have never really even indulged a genuinely market driven private insurance system. If we had, you would know by Flo or a Gecko of Pedro Cerrano telling you throughout your broadcast day that they have the best for the least.
An equally important question.
Where will the 30,000,000 get the funds to purchase health insurance?
Answer: the government.
Where does the government get their money?
Answer: the taxpayer.
Health insurance, if sold in competitive market places like auto, life, homeowners, disability, renters insurance, business insurance, virtually all insurance products...could be so much easier to purchase and more competitively priced than it is today. For example in some states, you have two (2) options for insurers. And I'm sure the 2 are in collusion on pricing. LOL
jg, for some reason, this is very difficult for people like 108 to understand. But then again, being a lefty libbie, our expectations for him are likely too high.
And BTW- I think the real # of uninsured is more like 50 M
In these markets they dont insure a car after an accident or insure a house after it burns down.
Common sense. In short supply in a liberal's utopian world.
Come on people, its not that difficult. There are about 315M of us living in the Us and about 40M are without insurance. All 315M get healthcare at some point in our lives and other than those that bail on their co-pay, all but those 40M "pay" for their care (let's leave the whose "paying" for those on Medicare and Medicaid for another day). The 40M receive an inordinate percentage of their healthcare in the ER and that very expensive care is paid for by the taxpayers. The cost of those 40M together with those on Medicare and Medicaid consumes a very big chunk of the federal budget as well as those of the separate states. Further, in the aggregate represents approx. 17% of our GDP and until recently had been growing faster than the rate of inflation.
If the government had the kind of money it had in the 50s and early 60s we could avoid all the anxiety brought about by major change and just keep going along with this expensive and inefficient system (the US devotes a higher % of its GDP to healthcare than any other advanced industrial nation which includes every nation we trade with and compete against). Trouble is we don't have anywhere close to that kind of cash sitting around any more. So what to do?
You can't raise taxes (and using tax revenues to fund such an inefficient delivery system wouldn't be very smart). You can't squeeze the providers (docs and hospitals, etc.), big pharma, and the DME industry overnight to come in line with some level of payments ordained by the government. So what's left? How about shifting as much of cost associated with as many of those 40M away from the government and directly to the citizenry? That wouldn't just include the healthcare of the very poor and those with pre-existing conditions but also those who had exceeded the max caps previously found in all policies, those who had "bare bones" coverage and had the misfortune of finding out just how limited that coverage was and looked " to the system" to pick up the shortfall, and of course the young, healthy, and "bulletproof" uninsured.
The old and infirm will benefit at the expense of the young and healthy. We can argue forever on the fairness of that but what we can't argue about is that everyone is going to get healthcare, its really just a question of how/who will pay for it and hopefully will the new system make it easier to control the cost.
Personally I favor the ACA. I'm an independent who has a business that competes with businesses in Western Europe that have a noticeable advantage on my US based operations because they pay so little directly for their workers healthcare (that's part of the reason I had to move that part of my business over to Europe). I just wish the GOP had fought for improvements to the Senate's bill. No clear thinking businessman would tell you that they could imagine the US economy in 50 or even 20 years without a comprehensive national healthcare program that at least resembles the ACA. Why drag our feet?
I won't be surprised to see some uptick in the total expenditures and %age of GDP devoted to healthcare when the 30M are finally able to access healthcare like the rest of us. However this is a long term proposition and it needs modifications beyond "fine tuning". It will take more than a decade but after the baby boomers are gone it will substantially reduce the share of the expense shouldered directly by the government and likely foster a system in which most have individual policies rather than provided as part of their wages. Honestly I haven't yet seen a better response, even as ugly as the ACA is.
Lost all credibility right here!
Just take the rest of whatever you do over there and od it like they do and then you can have it the way you like it.