Now you are FORCED to buy health insurance, what will you eliminate to afford it?

page: 21
81
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib



Actually the bigger the pool when we are speaking in terms of health insurers at the same risk will drive costs down.


Where are you guys getting this from. It flies in the face of the most fundamental economic principles. Increased demand drives prices up. Unless of course the insurance companies are nice enough to cap their profit margins.


It is NOT increased demand. Increased demand would be if more people suddenly became sick and injured and hospitals overflowed.

We are talking about a larger pool of insured.

If one person goes to the auto parts store and buys a single tire, they get charged full price. If 100 people get together and as a group place an order for hundreds of tires, they get a volume discount. THIS is what we are talking about by stating that a larger pool of insured get a better deal than one person buying insurance all by themselves. This is why Employer plans are cheaper than individual plans for the same level of care. It is basic economy of scale. More group customers, means lower individual costs.

Your claims of increased demand are illogical as increased demand would only be valid if there were a nation wide epidemic of illness or injury. Notice the difference?




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin

I was referring to increased numbers of insured not increased demand. Are you saying that more people will become sick and injured because of this bill????? How does passing a bill make more people sick and injured?


You are assuming that the currently 30 million uninsured will not pay the much cheaper penalty and instead buy health insurance. Most of these people do not have insurance because they are healthy and haven't been to a doctor in years, not to mention how many may not even be employed. The government has overlooked an adverse selection problem due to the penalty for not having insurance being far cheaper than actually buying insurance. This also holds true for employers. Couple that with the fact you cannot be denied for any reason, why pay for health insurance until you need it? I wish I could just pay a fine that was less than half what my car insurance premium is and just buy car insurance when I need it.


On the other hand, this is great for people who are in need of health care, but haven't been able to afford it...so the demand for health care will increase, however the pool will have also increased its risk. When you pool risk, once you reach a certain threshold of people in the pool, the number of people becomes less important than the percantage that are sick.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Terapin

I was referring to increased numbers of insured not increased demand. Are you saying that more people will become sick and injured because of this bill????? How does passing a bill make more people sick and injured?


You are assuming that the currently 30 million uninsured will not pay the much cheaper penalty and instead buy health insurance. Most of these people do not have insurance because they are healthy and haven't been to a doctor in years


That doesn't make a lot of sense although most of the other part of the post does.

People that are healthy have health insurance to REMAIN healthy. People just don't have health insurance because they feel healthy at present time.

When you say:


"Most of these people do not have insurance because they are healthy and haven't been to a doctor in years"


That makes absolutely no sense at all and it sounds like a terrible Republican talking point. And no, I hate all dems and repub's alike.. I certainly have no affection for either party.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan

People that are healthy have health insurance to REMAIN healthy. People just don't have health insurance because they feel healthy at present time.


I wasn't discussing people that have health insurance.


When you say:


"Most of these people do not have insurance because they are healthy and haven't been to a doctor in years"


That makes absolutely no sense at all and it sounds like a terrible Republican talking point. And no, I hate all dems and repub's alike.. I certainly have no affection for either party.


Since over half of the 30 million uninsured, I think the number is 17 million, make $50k+ per year and like 9 million of those make $75k+ per year, logic would surmise that those people are healthy. They make more than the median income so it is logical to presume if they were sick(not the common cold) they would have some sort of health coverage. This shows that health coverage is low on their priority list so they are going to find the cheapest way out.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


No.. my god no.


People do not have health insurance because premiums are too high or they have preexisting conditions.

Do you think anyone would reject health care because they feel healthy at the time? What happens when you get out of bed and step wrong and tear your Achilles tendon? Well guess it was better not to have insurance because I felt good when I went to sleep



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by mhc_70
 


No.. my god no.


People do not have health insurance because premiums are too high or they have preexisting conditions.


They also do not have insurance because they are healthy and would rather have an extra bedroom, a newer car, eat steak, new suit etc. It may be hard to see from your perspective, but peoples priorities vary quite a bit. In 2007 9 million people made $75k+ and did not have health insurance.
Page 22 if your interested.



Do you think anyone would reject health care because they feel healthy at the time? What happens when you get out of bed and step wrong and tear your Achilles tendon? Well guess it was better not to have insurance because I felt good when I went to sleep


Can you show me where those 9 million people were denied coverage or could not afford it? I doubt they rejected it, I am sure all of them would have purchased health insurance if you lowered the cost/increased benefits enough to make it more important than that new 50" plasma, boat... tell me you haven't been eyeing something lately



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Most people making 50 to 75K a year, are employed and get health coverage through their employers.

Some people are healthy and do not have insurance. Are they going to stay healthy forever? If they get sick or injured will they refuse medical treatment, or will they seek help for which they have not paid for??? What if a healthy person chooses to have children. If the children are born in a hospital who pays when the parents have no insurance? Who pays for the kids medical care and health checkups?

You insure against the possibility of problems. Given the statistics you can determine roughly for a given population how many people will get sick and what kind of care they will need. Those are very accurate possibilities which you can determine general need. When the problems eventually happen and you have planned for these possibilities, you are covered. You can not simply say OK I am sick now, and so only now I will begin to pay. A few months premium payments does not generally pay for the medical costs incurred. Just like a mortgage payment does not pay for the house. It takes years to pay a mortgage.

I cut my hand once. I needed a few surgeries and some very delicate nerve reattachment surgery from a specialized hand surgeon. Never mind the tests medications, and related costs. If I did not have insurance, I would be responsible for the costs out of my own pocket in a lump sum, which would have been quite expensive and I could not have afforded it. Can you afford to lose $5,000 or more if you suddenly get injured or sick without warning? I was glad that I had insurance which paid for everything with no worries. My hand is fully recovered to normal, and I have peace of mind, which is priceless. Without the insurance, I could not have afforded the costs and would be walking around with a gimpy hand. I much prefer my health intact.

Perhaps they should include an option to never pay, but you must then agree to never for the rest of your life use ANY health services. Get sick of injured, tough you are on your own. If you die a painful lingering death, your choice, too late now. Does that sound reasonable or like something that would work? Or, is it Ok to take a million dollars of cancer therapy and only begin to pay for it after you become sick?

[edit on 24/3/10 by Terapin]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Most people making 50 to 75K a year, are employed and get health coverage through their employers.


What is the difference in health coverage between paying the penalty/tax or paying a monthly premium/tax now that health insurance providers cannot deny you, even for a pre-existing condition?



Some people are healthy and do not have insurance. Are they going to stay healthy forever? If they get sick or injured will they refuse medical treatment, or will they seek help for which they have not paid for??? What if a healthy person chooses to have children. If the children are born in a hospital who pays when the parents have no insurance? Who pays for the kids medical care and health checkups?


Ofcourse they won't stay healthy forever or refuse health care when they need it. At that time, surely, they will take advantage of the government subsidies and go buy a policy that suites their needs. The care will be no different, unless youv'e been drinking the kool aid that says dozens of preventative tests and treatments will save money by preventing thousands of different diseases that most of us will never get anyway.



You insure against the possibility of problems. Given the statistics you can determine roughly for a given population how many people will get sick and what kind of care they will need. Those are very accurate possibilities which you can determine general need. When the problems eventually happen and you have planned for these possibilities, you are covered. You can not simply say OK I am sick now, and so only now I will begin to pay. A few months premium payments does not generally pay for the medical costs incurred. Just like a mortgage payment does not pay for the house. It takes years to pay a mortgage.


With this bill you can just pay the substantionally cheaper tax, until you get sick ofcourse. However if you make less than $88k, you will get some form of government assistance.



I cut my hand once. I needed a few surgeries and some very delicate nerve reattachment surgery from a specialized hand surgeon. Never mind the tests medications, and related costs. If I did not have insurance, I would be responsible for the costs out of my own pocket in a lump sum, which would have been quite expensive and I could not have afforded it. Can you afford to lose $5,000 or more if you suddenly get injured or sick without warning? I was glad that I had insurance which paid for everything with no worries. My hand is fully recovered to normal, and I have peace of mind, which is priceless. Without the insurance, I could not have afforded the costs and would be walking around with a gimpy hand. I much prefer my health intact.


Those days are gone, which is my point. With this new bill, if you had no insurance you would just be enrolled in the exchange if you chose not to buy private insurance. Your income tax refund would reflect a tax, if you enrolled in the exchange or a credit if you purchased your own private coverage.



Perhaps they should include an option to never pay, but you must then agree to never for the rest of your life use ANY health services. Get sick of injured, tough you are on your own. If you die a painful lingering death, your choice, too late now. Does that sound reasonable or like something that would work? Or, is it Ok to take a million dollars of cancer therapy and only begin to pay for it after you become sick?


I agree, however you can't expect people to reasonable based on an 'honor system'. many people are pissed and when push comes to shove the penalty will be the best way to "game" the system, legally.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


Excellent post, I think the tantrum thrown by people who spend to much time pumping each other up to higher and higher levels of anxiety, is starting to wind down. We have a healthcare bill, alot of things are going to change over the course of time, I think that it is in everyone's best intrest to learn what it can do for them, whether you want it or not, (hell you're paying for it might as well use it)

I spent alot of time argueing with friends about the whole deal, the most venement are the most broke, in reality it will help them the most. When asked what he is doing now for insurance/healthcare. His response "I'll just go the ER" Thats the reason for the biggest group plan ever.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


It's not my problem that people like electronics more than their health. That is the southern united states though. Have you ever had health insurance? I am guessing you haven't.

The reason why (if you don't) is because either it's ridiculously priced for what you need if not had through employment, or you have PREEXISTING CONDITIONS which either make it $750 a month or just plain rejected. Or you can't even have coverage for your prior ailment.

What a health system indeed we had previously. Some of you guys are crazy when this is going to do a LOT OF GOOD. Too bad youre required, the rich are going to have to foot all the bill anyway in the longrun.

Definitely not the person making $35,000 a year. If you are not totally broke I guess it's a bummer but I suppose if it's an ailment like I had it could bankrupt you or you could just pay the yearly fee prorated etc..

What would I have done if I didn't have health insurance after I found out I had this autoimmune disease? That would have been costly seeing all those specialists without, and it still was costly with a $50 copay at every one of them. So basically it has taken all my (already dwindled) bankroll but it's cool because at least I have a roof over my head. Can't complain. Don't think it could happen to you too? You will be thankful if put in the same situation as I.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I'm not going to do a thing. I have health insurance (though with a 1K$ deductible probably illegal under this new law and not "acceptable" insurance) already, and you know the old saying that you can't get blood from a stone. I will hold onto my current insurance until they price me out (already getting there as I had a 200$ deductible just a couple years ago) or they go out of business. I have no ability to buy any more coverage, and I absolutely refuse to go into Medicaid - I have seen the sort of "treatment" people on Medicaid get and I want no part of it. Worse yet (this is for those of you who think you're gonna get really sweet coverage under this monstrosity), with all the new people in the system, the level of care will get even worse and you'll be lucky if you can see a doctor when you need to.

If you think all these new people who are forced into the system will spread the risk around and lower costs, think again - the more weight you pile onto an already over-burdened structure, the more likely it is to collapse.

You won't get quality care under this law, unless you are well-off and have your own plan - and your insurer doesn't go out of business! Or, you work for the government and get the benefits they get. Otherwise, you will get what they have in Canada and England and other places with socialized medicine - long waits and too few doctors to go around. It won't be so wonderful when someone gets cancer and he or she has to wait months for testing and treatment.

Reform is needed, but this isn't reform - it's a punch in the gut to the American people. What would have been so hard about just trying to help the dirt poor get insured? Why monkey with everyone's lives? It's just dragging everyone else down to bring a few people up. Why not just give subsidies to the very poor (those who are too poor to buy their own policy but make too much to get on Medicaid - the so-called "working poor") to help buy insurance (and not have it be mandatory to buy it) and fund that with some non-regressive taxes?

It would be as if America is a ship and a few people have fallen overboard. Why not just rescue them instead of causing the entire ship to go Titanic and eventually sink?

But no, the mandate is bull hockey. You can't be forced to buy anything (unless you are undertaking in an optional activity like driving a car) and you can't be fined for existing.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 





It is NOT increased demand. Increased demand would be if more people suddenly became sick and injured and hospitals overflowed.

Your claims of increased demand are illogical as increased demand would only be valid if there were a nation wide epidemic of illness or injury. Notice the difference?


I think you are confused on what this legislation is. Or maybe you are confused what we are debating. The legislation requires individuals to purchase insurance. Another poster's argument is that the more people who have insurance the cheaper it will be.

My argument is that although this legislation will increase the profit margins for the insurance industry that the increased demand will result in increased premium prices.

However it is not debatable that this legislation created tremendous demand for the insurance industry. Due to the fact that this legislation requires individuals to have insurance, all who previously didn't have insurance will now be entering the market place to purchase insurance. The increased demand becomes present the day the legislation is signed not due to some epidemic as you state.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
Now you are FORCED to buy health insurance, what will you eliminate to afford it?


Looks like I'm going to have to give up my favorite snack to keep the premiums down and also to cut back in leaner times.

THE SILENT THUNDER POPSICLE
1 stick of butter
1 small bowl of crisco
3 tablespoons of salt
3 tablespoons of sugar
1 chopstick
MSG seasoning

Insert chopstick into butter so it runs lengthwise and protrudes from one end of the butter stick. Coat the stick of butter with generous amounts of Crisco, and then roll in the sugar and salt until completely coated. Season with MSG to taste, and then freeze overnight.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 





Lowering overhead is designed to lessen premium increases.


So says the rhetoric however let's look at this objectively. Companies focus on lowering overhead so they can increase profit margin. You and others seem to believe that the industry is just going to cap their profit margins. This, too me, is extremely naive and something that would be unacceptable to the shareholders.



The problem is that there were no alternative bills mentioned. Republicans offered nothing. They never even tried to make any suggestions. They only said NO. During eight years of the Bush administration they had the power but never did a thing and costs skyrocketed. During the recent debate they simply made a mad grasp for insurance lobbiest campaign donations and now the insurance companies have them in their pockets.


Yep. It is all a dog and pony show. Is there any chance that when it is a Republican led house with a Republican president that this legislation will be overturned. Not a chance! Seeing all the "outrage" by the Republicans was comical.




My guess is that you were born in a Hospital. Who paid for that. Have any kids? who pays for their health care. If you get hit by a car, who pays? The taxpayers pay and those who have insurance pay for those who do not have insurance. How is that fair?


What are you talking about? How did the taxpayer pay for my birth or for the birth of my children? How did those who have insurance pay? You are making false and ignorant accusations.




I showed you the basic 18 changes in the bill that refer to these topics. The bill is long ,but there are good summaries available.


Here was your statement:


The Bill is long and a bit difficult to wade through, but it does contain measures that prevented Blue Cross from getting the 39% increase they sought, and it also helps contain private insurers as well from making such significant increases.


Again what section in the bill prevents companies from increasing their premiums. The only section I have found that comes even close to what you describe requires that the insurance companies submit a justification for their premium increases. However I have found nothing that regulates profit margins or premium increase that you have indicated.

The link you provided that shows 18 photographs with a sentence or two each that is intended to summarize a 2,400+ page bill is absurd. Do you really believe 18 sentences and pictures are able to adequately summarize a 2400+ page bill.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I've been an almost 3 year member of ATS.. I've created insane threads about the possibility of alien craft. I've discussed the 9/11 situation... I've given my opinion on the war in iraq and its implications.

The ignorance and obvious will to incite anger is not new to me.. But at least then we were talking about things that were speculation.

At this point, the detractors are working off of nothing but negativity, which to me, proves they are unreliable. I know a few of you have shown some ability to concede decent parts of the bill, but most of you are just unreachable.

If you can't at LEAST agree that the bill that has been passed is not better then the system already in place, then thank you! It was obviously never going to be perfect, but this is an enormous step. Those of you who stand so strongly against it, I hope you see the day that progressivism becomes an act of evolution in your mind. We are no longer a republic or a democracy.. That died long ago. We need to throw away our ideals about utopia, because it is no longer an option. We need to do what's right.

The bill, while it is flawed, it DEFINITELY right. It will open the doors for many positive things in healthcare... Profit won't be one of them.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Why would anyone get insured? I would much rather pay the fine instead of premiums. When i get sick ill sign up for an insurance policy, remember, they can't deny me now. How long you think the insurance company's are going to let that fly?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicademus
 


Whatever the insurance companies lose by not being able to screw people out of coverage they will make up by the sheer numbers of new people paying on less expensive basic coverage type policies.

Believe me the insurance companies are always going to come out ahead no matter what we do.

I love when they say insurance ought not be a mandated expense and it is against states rights for the federal government to impose this on us...well,
I don't want to pay taxes but they take my money anyway.

They pay for roads and schools and repairs...at least that is what they tell me. I pay for car insurance and all manner of other taxes for things I don't see.

Why not use what you save in co-pays for the tests you can now get for free to pay for the mandatory health care insurance?

Why not pay into a system so that you can be assured an ambulance will show up and you will be treated in a hospital?

Maybe the people bitching about this "mandatory" expense should opt out of accepting emergency rescue services?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Nicademus
 


Whatever the insurance companies lose by not being able to screw people out of coverage they will make up by the sheer numbers of new people paying on less expensive basic coverage type policies.

Believe me the insurance companies are always going to come out ahead no matter what we do.

I love when they say insurance ought not be a mandated expense and it is against states rights for the federal government to impose this on us...well,
I don't want to pay taxes but they take my money anyway.

They pay for roads and schools and repairs...at least that is what they tell me. I pay for car insurance and all manner of other taxes for things I don't see.

Why not use what you save in co-pays for the tests you can now get for free to pay for the mandatory health care insurance?

Why not pay into a system so that you can be assured an ambulance will show up and you will be treated in a hospital?

Maybe the people bitching about this "mandatory" expense should opt out of accepting emergency rescue services?


If i could "opt out" of paying for it too, I would in a heartbeat. But government don't work like that. Like people with no kids having to pay for other peoples kids going to school.

Have you ever taken an ambulance ride? You get billed. heavily. If taxes are paying for it why do we still get charged?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Nicademus]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 





Why not pay into a system so that you can be assured an ambulance will show up and you will be treated in a hospital?


I am convinced some of you don't understand what this legislation is. You are not paying in to "the system" you are paying into the insurance industry who takes huge profits for simply distributing funds. The people are left with less then what they started with. You don't see the corruption in this?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join