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.

 

Obamacare Premiums Rise as Insurers Fret Over Law’s Shaky Future

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

There is absolutely something we can do about it: GET THE TAX PAYER OUT OF THE HEALTH COVERAGE BUSINESS. If we'd cease any and all government subsidies, set Medicare and Medicaid limits at rock bottom levels, and eliminate any and all other government intervention in the health choices of Americans, the prices would plummet. The present system's price points have been set based on the maximum levels the providers can bilk the government out of. If Medicare will pay $1,000 for a procedure, then you can bet that procedure will "cost" $1,000 for anyone who needs it. Why? Because the government effectively picks up the tab for those who can't afford to pay it themselves through subsidies and direct payments to provider facilities.

The free market fails when artificially futzed with and there's few things in this life the government doesn't love futzing with.




posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Here are brief summaries from around the country of how ObamaCare is hurting so many people already.

insurancenewsnet.com...

Even former President Obama says that his namesake has "real problems".
www.bloomberg.com...



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: SBMcG

the choir applauds, preach on.


Hallelujah, Brother!

Hey man, either we're a constitutional republic with a free market economy or we're not. The Founding Fathers would be incensed at the notion of the Federal government interfering in healthcare and even more pissed-off at a citizenry demanding such a thing.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: SBMcG
If I would have paid for a mid-level "silver" plan, I would have spent about $8,000 and still had a $4,000 deductible. Why the hell should I do that? And why the hell would I VOLUNTARILY subsidize a massively-flawed system I instinctively knew would implode shortly after it was forced upon us?


I am wondering what you think about this statement. I heard someone say it's not fair for him to pay for women to have babies. Do you think it's right for women to be in the same insurance pool as men?


Probably not, but that brings a whole host of Federal (and state) sex discrimination laws into play, so that's probably not a realistic question.

The question of "right" and "fair" doesn't really factor into anything anymore because an entire generation has been conditioned like Pavlov's Dog to expect everything to be "fair".

That being said, women having babies provides cute little cuddly future taxpayers, so any additional cost of that activity is probably a push...



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
My wife works for a hospital, and some of the doctors offices aren't covered by the insurance that the hospital offers its own employees, and on top of that they have to use the hospital pharmacy to get prescription drugs.
I don't know anyone who has had their insurance go down to what most people would call AFFORDABLE.
Most people have seen their insurance rates go up to what they pay for a mortgage, so who has affordable insurance?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

When you consider the 41% unemployment rate .. is it?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: dfnj2015

There is absolutely something we can do about it: GET THE TAX PAYER OUT OF THE HEALTH COVERAGE BUSINESS. If we'd cease any and all government subsidies, set Medicare and Medicaid limits at rock bottom levels, and eliminate any and all other government intervention in the health choices of Americans, the prices would plummet. The present system's price points have been set based on the maximum levels the providers can bilk the government out of. If Medicare will pay $1,000 for a procedure, then you can bet that procedure will "cost" $1,000 for anyone who needs it. Why? Because the government effectively picks up the tab for those who can't afford to pay it themselves through subsidies and direct payments to provider facilities.

The free market fails when artificially futzed with and there's few things in this life the government doesn't love futzing with.


Exactly, people can't get through their thick skulls that government intervention distorting markets is a huge part of the problem.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

While blame the govt for everything sounds fun, it isn't 100% accurate.

The prices are also set on what private insurance will pay.

The only way this will work it's way out is no insurance, none.
edit on 9-5-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Obama should have worked on reducing the cost of healthcare.
Instead he just wanted everyone to have insurance to pay for overpriced healthcare.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

His intent was to give freebie health coverage to his pool of Kept Voters, funded by the tax payers who largely did not vote for him anyway. The Republicans' intent was to muck up the plan enough to ensure everyone took it in the shorts, including their own voter base.

Basic fact: Obama's original plan should have NEVER been passed, and the GOP screwed up by not outright blocking the bill by whatever means necessary. The American people, meanwhile, also screwed up by ever giving Obama a single party rule for 2 years. Bad idea, shouldn't have happened.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Bluntone22

His intent was to give freebie health coverage to his pool of Kept Voters, funded by the tax payers who largely did not vote for him anyway. The Republicans' intent was to muck up the plan enough to ensure everyone took it in the shorts, including their own voter base.

Basic fact: Obama's original plan should have NEVER been passed, and the GOP screwed up by not outright blocking the bill by whatever means necessary. The American people, meanwhile, also screwed up by ever giving Obama a single party rule for 2 years. Bad idea, shouldn't have happened.


I think his intent was a single payer system. The ACA only accelerated the train wreck that is the US medical system.

The repubs said they would allow the supreme court to overturn the ACA, because they are all pu55ies and couldn't handle being called names.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Medical insurance is an issue too.

There is a reason you can get both eyes lasik'ed for $600. Those are your EYES.
We don't hear tort reform,
we don't hear no one can afford it,
we don't hear regulations raise prices.
It just gets done at a price the market can afford.

Anyone that does not want single payer needs to endorse an out law on any medical insurance.

The free rein of insurance/medical must come to an end, and it will when it collapses. Just look at costs in other nations. Evidence is right there.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The goal of the leftists from the start was to infect the public psyche with the notion that the Federal government was responsible for providing healthcare and that the individual had a "right" to same.

Both ideas are unconstitutional on many levels, but the American left has always known how to move the ball when it comes to getting the public hooked on freebies "they" (in reality, the top 20% of taxpayers) provide.

Toward that end, I'm sad to say that Obama and his leftist allies have been successful. The correct and Constitutional play would have been to let Obamacare collapse to give everyone a painful reminder of exactly how liberal policies always end up -- hurting the people they were supposed to help the most. Then the issue of healthcare should have been left to the states with the Federal government playing a minimal role of providing block grants and basic oversight.

But that's not what we're going to get. We're going to get a Republican version of Obamacare that is not going to be the "single-payer" (free) system the Dependent 47% want, and will likely end up as a slightly less onerous scourge upon the Productive 53% than the system it replaces. I doubt it will be much of an improvement over Obamacare, but until the Senate has its say, there's no way to know for sure what it will be.

I have recently changed my mind on how this all plays out... Whatever Trumpcare turns out to be, I fear we've hit the Point of No Return with healthcare. There are way more takers out there than givers, and unfortunately all votes count equally, so I have no doubt that at some point, this country will have a universal healthcare system that will be every bit as disastrous as every other universal system on Earth.

That will double our national tax burden, finally finish off entire employment sectors like manufacturing, and forever cap the growth potential of our economy.

Exactly as Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid planned it back in 2009...




edit on 9-5-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama was a miserable failure.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

The supreme court disagrees with you.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

The supreme court disagrees with you.


Actually, they don't. Obamacare was passed as a tax -- something the Congress has the constitutional power to do.

I am one of those rare conservatives who actually thinks the SCOTUS got it right on Obamacare.

In my post I was referring to a "single-payer" system as unconstitutional, something that has yet to be tested before the Court. The Obamacare ruling did not establish or grant a "right" to be provided healthcare to the individual. If you want to test that, go ahead and sue the Federal government for taxpayer-funded healthcare citing the Obamacare SCOTUS ruling and see how far you get.

The SCOTUS Obamacare ruling simply established that the law was essentially a tax duly passed by Congress.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Result of the supreme court is they did not strike it down, and at he end of the day that is what matters.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Medical insurance is an issue too.

There is a reason you can get both eyes lasik'ed for $600. Those are your EYES.
We don't hear tort reform,
we don't hear no one can afford it,
we don't hear regulations raise prices.
It just gets done at a price the market can afford.

Anyone that does not want single payer needs to endorse an out law on any medical insurance.

The free rein of insurance/medical must come to an end, and it will when it collapses. Just look at costs in other nations. Evidence is right there.


What you are missing is that insurance = third party payor. Prices of elective medical care have gone down because there is no third party involved whether it is government or an insurance company. In other words, people are paying out of pocket so the market is functioning because the purchaser (YOU) are incentivized to shop around for the best price because it is actually your money that is being spent.

With insurance, single payor, or any kind of third party payor that might be involved, the consumer has little to no incentive to care what the services costs because in their mind, they aren't footing the bill. As a result, you see price inflation.

This is also why college is out of control because tuition reflects third party payor in the short term (student loans) not what people can actually pay out of pocket.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Medical insurance is an issue too.

There is a reason you can get both eyes lasik'ed for $600. Those are your EYES.
We don't hear tort reform,
we don't hear no one can afford it,
we don't hear regulations raise prices.
It just gets done at a price the market can afford.

Anyone that does not want single payer needs to endorse an out law on any medical insurance.

The free rein of insurance/medical must come to an end, and it will when it collapses. Just look at costs in other nations. Evidence is right there.


What you are missing is that insurance = third party payor. Prices of elective medical care have gone down because there is no third party involved whether it is government or an insurance company. In other words, people are paying out of pocket so the market is functioning because the purchaser (YOU) are incentivized to shop around for the best price because it is actually your money that is being spent.

With insurance, single payor, or any kind of third party payor that might be involved, the consumer has little to no incentive to care what the services costs because in their mind, they aren't footing the bill. As a result, you see price inflation.

This is also why college is out of control because tuition reflects third party payor in the short term (student loans) not what people can actually pay out of pocket.



Except in other countries (taxpayer funded) that have better health outcomes than the US. and do it for less than 1/2 the cost.

And the regulations for lasik surgery must still be huge and damning like with any medical procedure. And that would lead to it being prohibitively expensive----but it isn't.

The only real solution (from evidence in other countries) is single payer-or out law insurance and let the free market adjust.
edit on 9-5-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
The goal of the leftists from the start was to infect the public psyche with the notion that the Federal government was responsible for providing healthcare and that the individual had a "right" to same.

Both ideas are unconstitutional on many levels, but the American left has always known how to move the ball when it comes to getting the public hooked on freebies "they" (in reality, the top 20% of taxpayers) provide.

Toward that end, I'm sad to say that Obama and his leftist allies have been successful. The correct and Constitutional play would have been to let Obamacare collapse to give everyone a painful reminder of exactly how liberal policies always end up -- hurting the people they were supposed to help the most. Then the issue of healthcare should have been left to the states with the Federal government playing a minimal role of providing block grants and basic oversight.

But that's not what we're going to get. We're going to get a Republican version of Obamacare that is not going to be the "single-payer" (free) system the Dependent 47% want, and will likely end up as a slightly less onerous scourge upon the Productive 53% than the system it replaces. I doubt it will be much of an improvement over Obamacare, but until the Senate has its say, there's no way to know for sure what it will be.

I have recently changed my mind on how this all plays out... Whatever Trumpcare turns out to be, I fear we've hit the Point of No Return with healthcare. There are way more takers out there than givers, and unfortunately all votes count equally, so I have no doubt that at some point, this country will have a universal healthcare system that will be every bit as disastrous as every other universal system on Earth.

That will double our national tax burden, finally finish off entire employment sectors like manufacturing, and forever cap the growth potential of our economy.

Exactly as Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid planned it back in 2009...





I prefer free market solutions, but I do fear we are too far down the road. As such, I expect we will get some sort of national healthcare for all. My hope is that when we do, it is also structured so that it can run along side free market solutions so people can truly see the difference.

It is amazing to me that we get cheap car insurance, cheap life insurance, cheap homeowner's insurance and yet people cannot see how health insurance would be the same if they simply let the market work.

The other issue though is that people tend to be emotional about healthcare. They will not carry insurance because they rather not spend the money on it, then they will get some affliction or have some other issue and all of a sudden they will complain that the insurance companies don't want them in the risk pool for pre-existing conditions. No duh! They fundamentally don't understand what insurance is supposed to be as a financial product.

Insurance is a bet you make that you will need the coverage and the insurance company is betting that you don't need coverage. For insurance to work, the vast majority of the covered won't need coverage and those premiums can fund the small portion that do.

Most people would never dream of driving without adequate car insurance because they know if they get in a wreck, they may not be able to afford a new car. However, many of these same people won't purchase insurance because they think nothing will ever happen to them.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Medical care cost as much as a house, and you have a better chance of using your health insurance then you do of using your home insurance because your house was destroyed.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join