It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Bad Is It For Trumpcare and the Republican Party

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Phage

Before ObamaCare, group/employer health coverage cost more than individually purchased health insurance.



Not in my experience or anyone I know


That's too bad, Veracity.




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

If you were denied, you went to the State High Risk Pool, if you could afford it..or went without health insurance, if you couldn't afford the High Risk Pool.
You seem to know a lot about the health insurance laws of my state, prior to the ACA. Can you show me the regulation of which you speak?




edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Those risk pools are artificial and you know it. Just another excuse insurers use to try and increase business. Their risk is already spread across all their policies.

Just like the state boundaries are artificial. Blue Cross / Blue Shield in Alabama has the same corporate owners as Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Tennessee. They can set higher rates in states they have less competition in that way, so they can use that surplus to offset lower prices to force smaller insurers out of more competitive states.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Those risk pools are artificial and you know it. Just another excuse insurers use to try and increase business.
Right. Like actuarial tables and life insurance. Utter nonsense. Pure fabrication. Baseless.
Tell them, not me.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

If you were denied, you went to the State High Risk Pool, if you could afford it..or went without health insurance, if you couldn't afford the High Risk Pool.
You seem to know a lot about the health insurance laws of my state, prior to the ACA. Can you show me the regulation of which you speak?


You can see at the bottom of my post, I reference ILLINOIS. Are you an Illinois resident Phage?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No. Did I say I was?

This post? The one I replied to?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




Those risk pools are artificial and you know it. Just another excuse insurers use to try and increase business.
Right. Like actuarial tables and life insurance. Utter nonsense. Pure fabrication. Baseless.
Tell them, not me.


Between Aug-Oct of each year, the IL state high-risk pool stopped accepting new enrollees. The allotted funds were nearing depletion. IL was glad to have ObamaCare come along and relieve them of that responsibility.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They know. You're the one who apparently doesn't.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

No. Did I say I was?

This post? The one I replied to?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks for pointing out the specific post you were questioning. Add Illinois to that post and it becomes accurate.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




the IL state high-risk pool stopped accepting new enrollees.

We were talking about the cost (and other) benefits of employer supplied medical coverage. Did you forget that? Or are you diverting?

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust




the IL state high-risk pool stopped accepting new enrollees.

We were talking about the cost (and other) benefits of employer supplied medical coverage. Did you forget that? Or are you diverting?

I pointed out WHY (before ObamaCare) Individual Health Insurance cost less than Group/Employer health insurance, in my state. You replied by disagreeing. I'm OK with that.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

It's the only true solution.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: veracity

It's the only true solution.


The U.S. should have "dual-payer". Those who want the government plan (Medicare for anyone) can do that. Those who want to buy a policy from Blue Cross can do that. It's too simple for these lawyer politicians to comprehend, though.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



I pointed out WHY (before ObamaCare) Individual Health Insurance cost less than Group/Employer health insurance, in my state. You replied by disagreeing.

False. You did not mention your state in the post which I replied to with this:

For the same coverage? For those with pre-existing conditions?

Not where I live.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I would have to look at what that entails in the U.S...we are single payer, single tier..sort of, but you can buy supplemental coverage for your perscripts, dental..etc.
Recently some private setups have started up..good if you have the $$, you can get treated very quickly, have tests like an MRI or surgery much sooner than the public system.
This created a bit of a problem because it's supposed to be single tier..the same for all. There have been legal battles but I couldn't fault someone for wanting quicker treatment though. I think too, the private system takes some pressure off the public system. The previous option was to go out of country. The whole idea is that people shouldn't have crippling debt's to save their life or health.
It's not perfect by any stretch, wait times for some thing's is unacceptable in the public system, but no one is left destitute and in lifelong debt.

edit on 27-3-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Thank-you for that information about your country's healthcare system, VonClod. I know from personal experience exactly what you're saying.

I have both Veterans Administration and Private Health Insurance. For general check-ups and prescriptions, I use the V.A.. But, because I've witnessed some horrors there, I use Private Insurance for anything that requires going inside of me.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

NP
I almost considered the private system for my cataract surgery, my workplace was going to pay..I was in no rush to be honest, being the big chicken I was
.
In the end I had a 4-5 month wait but had the best guy doing it..the optional lenses did cost just under a grand, but that was it for cost + some drops that were not to expensive.
edit on 27-3-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

In a way we have the same problem here. I have yet to be denied medical care, whether insured or not, but if uninsured, that care can be financially devastating.

Strangely enough, the medical system seems to be at least partially compassionate to the situation. A few years back, I had something clog up my ear canal, completely, to the point I couldn't hear anything out of that ear. I stopped by a clinic here and told them the problem. I asked up front what it would cost. They gave me a price well over $100, to which I just half-chuckled and said "No, thanks. Can't afford it." As I started to walk away, they asked if I had insurance and I replied no. They asked me to wait and a few minutes later I was told they could do it for $50. I got my ear fixed that day.

My wife's heart surgery set me back $140,000. Mine, for some reason, was dropped to $5000. Very similar operations. The only difference I can see was I kept saying I couldn't afford it, and I don't think she did.

Doctors are caught between several rocks and hard places. On one hand, they deserve to be paid well, very well, for the years of training, the knowledge, and the skills they have. On the other hand, few can actually afford to pay them in today's economy. On one hand, most doctors went into medicine to help people. On the other hand, in order to do so, their expenses are astronomical, making their services out of the reach of most people.

Malpractice insurance for example: no doctor in his right mind would dare consider going without it. He doesn't have to make a mistake; just having a patient with a serious illness and a bad attitude is all it takes to be facing a lawyer with $$$ in his eyes. In a courtroom, jurors are more than happy to hand out millions of dollars in awards, just because they feel sorry for the patient; I have sat on those juries and heard the arguments: "I don't care who's at fault; that poor lady needs help! He's got insurance." So the premiums go up to pay the awards, the doctors have to charge more to cover them, and jurists, who are average people, have even less sympathy towards the doctors and award more.

Medical technology has advanced tremendously... but the market is small. Medical equipment is tremendously expensive to start with due to the market, but add into that the cost of components for medical equipment. There are generally three grades of electronic components: standard, military (physically more rugged, with greater operating temperature ranges) and medical (100% pre-tested and manufactured at slower rates to ensure as little failure as possible). The most expensive is medical. A simple quad op-amp chip that I buy for $0.25 can cost $5.00 in medical grade.

But the biggest cost is health insurance. Insurance companies spend minor fortunes on lawyers whose sole job is to make sure they can legally pay as little as humanly possible. They lobby doctors to accept their insurance, threatening a loss of business if the doctors don't accept it, and they use expensive negotiators to do that. They also expect discounts, deep, deep discounts, on procedures, and usually take their sweet time transferring funds. A typical doctor's office has to hire additional help just to handle the paperwork required to get paid, help that is itself getting more expensive as the forms and company rules get more complicated. That's one of the big reasons many doctors share office space; they are also sharing office help dealing with insurance.

In an attempt to stay profitable, many doctors and especially hospitals have begun to overcharge, both in an attempt to get more out of uninsured patients, and to try to get insurance companies to raise their pay. They also have to overcome sometimes sub-standard pay rates enforced on them by Medicare/Medicaid, even lower rates than private insurance companies allow. But this just means less people can afford the higher premiums and more can't pay at all.

So what do we, in our infinite stoopidity, do? We pass a law that makes it illegal to not buy insurance that is unaffordable, and threaten those who don't have enough money with financial fines! We make it more complex to get insurance. We try to force employers to pay for insurance, forcing them to cut back on hiring people and on hours, making it even more impossible for people to buy what we demand they buy. We raise the cost of living at a time when people are already having trouble keeping body and soul together.

We pass Obamacare.

And now, when the inevitable happens, when insurance premiums skyrocket, when insurance companies leave the health insurance market, when doctors are squeezed even harder because insurance companies are negotiating even lower payments due to their increased power... we scream in agony when anyone mentions fixing the problem they made. We argue and fight over which freakin' letter the news puts next to a politician's name.

If it wasn't for the fact that so many innocent would suffer, I would be supporting outlawing insurance completely, just to let some people either wake up to what's going on or suffer until they do.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I may not always agree, but I always respect your thoughtful posts.




If it wasn't for the fact that so many innocent would suffer, I would be supporting outlawing insurance completely, just to let some people either wake up to what's going on or suffer until they do.


No insurance, each person pays entire costs of medical care, and in this day and age in America that would mean choosing between non-treatment or indebtedness leading to possible bankruptcy. Lawsuits against you if you accidentally cause injury to someone else, to pay someone else's entire medical bill. Billionaires could afford this, I can't.

And that's why we have pooled-funds actuarial accounts (i.e. insurances) for payouts. The question is, is the actuarial account left up to the private sector, where costs/profit are determined by the insurance company and where fiduciary duty is not to the insured but to the corporation.; or is this actuarial account put in the hands of a national account run by the govt w/o a profit motive and which can have a say in what can be acceptable medical costs, for ex not willing to pay out exorbitant prices for medication.

At the last Republican US Rep meeting I attended, a 97 year old Republican gentleman stood up and said that enough is enough, the US should have only a single payer system, Medicare for all.
edit on 27-3-2017 by desert because: small clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: desert

As I respect your posts, desert.

The "high cost requires insurance" argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have seen insurance-based conversion of industries lead to higher prices in other areas besides health. Since life insurance became popular, burial expense costs have skyrocketed. As auto insurance became commonplace, auto repair costs rose exponentially (and it seems, in this case, that people began to take less care in driving safely). Pet insurance commonality has coincided with veterinary cost increases.

The issue is that once insurance is the norm, it becomes very difficult to remove it from the equation.

I see two possibilities for bettering the healthcare industry:
  • Require, as a condition of licensure, that no physician may turn down or limit anyone's access to their services, remove the expectation of insurance (no mandate on coverage), and regulate costs as needed. This will be the most painful but reasonable way to correct the problems, but in the end will also be the most sustainable.

  • Turn all payment of medical expenses, including medication, over to the government, as in single-payer. This will be the easiest to implement, but will also not be as sustainable. It will require constant governmental adjustments as time goes on to keep costs realistic.

What we have now is completely unsustainable and worse, does not insure everyone. It is actually doing the opposite of what it is designed to do, prohibiting those not covered from accessing health services while financially threatening them, and it is further cementing insurance into the system to make healthcare more expensive for those who it does cover. As time goes on, Obamacare will continue to crumble, insuring less at a higher cost, until it completely fails.

We can fix it now (this last bill was NOT a fix, btw) or we can wait patiently for the collapse.

TheRedneck



new topics




 
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join