Aetna CEO Sees Obama Health Law Doubling Some Premiums

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Catestrophic health insurance for things like a broken leg or a heart attack or cancer is not very expensive.


If you ever wanted solid proof that those on the right are divorced from reality, read this ^^^.

www.forbes.com...

Cancer is the ninth most expensive thing to treat.

Seventh is stroke, another catastrophic illness.

Fifth is heart attack.

In fact of the top ten most expensive illnesses, catastrophic ones account for at least half the list:

10. HIV $25,000

9. Cancer $49,000

8. Transplant $51,00

7. Stroke $61,000

6 Hemophilia $62,000

5. Heart Attack including Cardiac Revascularization (Angioplasty with or without Stent) $72,000

4. Coronary Artery Disease $75,000

3. Neonate (premature baby) with extreme problems $101,000

2. End-Stage Renal Disease $173,000

1. Respiratory Failure on Ventilator $314,000

But yeah sure, just go on making up crap NavyDoc, you're right to assume most people on the right will just believe what you're spouting without bothering to check if it's true.


ANd if you want to see the lack of reading comprehension on the left, look at the above. What I said is that a catostrophic insurance policy is not that expensive, not that those illnesses were not expensive. That is the whole point of a catastrophic policy, that you cover yourself for the most expensive problems but pay out of pocket for less expensive issues. Catastrophic, where you buy insurance to cover you if a horrible thing happens, but not for routine care.




Catastrophic health insurance plans are designed to provide an emergency safety net to protect you against unexpected medical costs.

Catastrophic plans are individual and family health insurance plans that emphasize coverage for hospitalization or serious illness. The word "catastrophic" is not always used in the name of the plan - they may also be referred to as hospital-only or short-term plans. Catastrophic plans may not provide coverage for other services such as prescription drugs, regular doctor's visits, immunizations or checkups.

Monthly premiums for catastrophic plans may be lower than those of other health insurance plans but annual deductibles are usually higher.


www.ehealthinsurance.com...
And you were saying something about people being ignorant?


Tell me so, if they're so cheap, why don't all those people living in poverty buy them?

And tell me, why would you reject a system that covers more people, costs you less, have better outcomes - like that in France in the UK?

Here's what that link says about the plan you think is so great:


Catastrophic health insurance plans:
Limit your medical expenses in case of emergency
May offer affordable monthly premiums
Usually have a high annual deductible
May have higher out-of-pocket costs for covered services
Don't always provide coverage for preventive care

A catastrophic plan may be right for you if:
You have no pre-existing medical conditions
You're not on regular prescription drugs
You rarely see the doctor
You can't afford more robust coverage
You expect to have other coverage within 6-12 months
You only want coverage in case of emergency


Sounds like a horrible pile of # to me.
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'll happily have my tax dollars pay for the health and welfare of my fellow human beings.

But that's just me.

I'm not a petulant child who kicks and screams about the government. Ironically, you seem to have no qualms with allowing corporations to dictate how you live your life.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

And again, you obviously haven't ACTUALLY read the bill, have you?

Tell us, if you don't have a job, how do you pay the fine?

Go on.

As for costs going up, tell me, what does the CBO say?

I'll help: the said to Boener that repealing it would cost more than keeping it, by about $109 billion.

www.cbo.gov...

Ever wonder why the GOP ACTUALLY wants to keep most of it? Because it ACTUALLY saves money.

Is it perfect? Hell no. But you know what, the US's healthcare system costs WAY too much and covers way to few people. Just to increase the profits of the middle man.


Here you are ranting about people not reading things. I have told you what the plan is if someone cannot pay the fine. It was in the last post I made on page 3 of this thread. Here, let me refresh your memory:



Today, you are not required to have health insurance. But beginning in 2014, most people will have to have it or pay a fine. For individuals, the penalty would start at $95 a year, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016.

For families the penalty would be $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement to have coverage can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs.



Let me direct your attention to the last line. "The requirement to have coverage can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs."

Understand? Or are you just going to continue to spout out of ignorance?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother


The UK has one of the best healthcare systems in the world (by all accounts except those on the far right). So does France. Both are Universal. Both countries spend FAR LESS per person than the US does.



Ok, now we all know you are full of crap.


Isn't France experiencing a huge exodus of people, due to the high taxes???
Wasn't there just an article last week exposing just how great the HC is in England. Maybe reference letting newborns, elderly and handicap people starve to death? Or how about all the staph infections they see, from dirty hospitals, or how about all the articles about how people are forced to wait extended times for treatment, or how about that fact that England is now pushing to offer their wonderful Free HC to other nations, but charge them.


Yeah, there system is SO great.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


You sir, need to put the crack pipe down!

The UK pays hospitals to let people die!

Problems with UK healthcare system.
More problems with UK healthcare system.
State run healthcare a disaster in waiting.
State run healthcare doesn't work in Germany either.
Even Sweden has had to ration care.
Even Canada is looking for ways to address its failing healthcare system.
Even liberal CBS News states that Canada is a mess.
Canada can not only NOT fund the system, but they're running short on healthcare professionals.

I could literally go on for days linking to reputable publications that present both factual and OBJECTIVE insight into a single-payer system and why they just don't work. But instead, the liberals will continue playing Pollyanna and bury their heads in the sand.

The BIGGEST problem with liberals, and likely what makes them liberal to begin with, is that they know and learn NOTHING from history, instead they are driven by fantasyland ideals that have already been proven to FAIL!.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'll happily have my tax dollars pay for the health and welfare of my fellow human beings.

But that's just me.

I'm not a petulant child who kicks and screams about the government. Ironically, you seem to have no qualms with allowing corporations to dictate how you live your life.


So, how much did you write the check for this month? And last month? How much will be graciously donating next month? Just curious...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'll happily have my tax dollars pay for the health and welfare of my fellow human beings.

But that's just me.

I'm not a petulant child who kicks and screams about the government. Ironically, you seem to have no qualms with allowing corporations to dictate how you live your life.


So, how much did you write the check for this month? And last month? How much will be graciously donating next month? Just curious...
Nice question, but liberals never give away their own money. They always give other people's money. It is just what they do.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother



[Tell me so, if they're so cheap, why don't all those people living in poverty buy them?

And tell me, why would you reject a system that covers more people, costs you less, have better outcomes - like that in France in the UK?

Here's what that link says about the plan you think is so great:


Catastrophic health insurance plans:
Limit your medical expenses in case of emergency
May offer affordable monthly premiums
Usually have a high annual deductible
May have higher out-of-pocket costs for covered services
Don't always provide coverage for preventive care

A catastrophic plan may be right for you if:
You have no pre-existing medical conditions
You're not on regular prescription drugs
You rarely see the doctor
You can't afford more robust coverage
You expect to have other coverage within 6-12 months
You only want coverage in case of emergency


Sounds like a horrible pile of # to me.
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I see you are deflecting from the fact that you were caught out being ignorant.

A lot of people buy them. Young, healthy people don't need to spend a lot of money on full coverage insurance so they can save a lot of money by protecting themselves from disasters but not on things that they don't need. It is quite logical.

Why don't poor people buy it? Probably the same reason why they don't buy lots of things.

Simply because the UK and French systems do not cost less or provide better outcomes. Sure, a user might perceive his OOP expense as "less" but his overall tax structure and government expense is more. Notice the debt and financial problems the government of France and the UK and Europe in general are having? This is because there is no free lunch.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'll happily have my tax dollars pay for the health and welfare of my fellow human beings.

But that's just me.

I'm not a petulant child who kicks and screams about the government. Ironically, you seem to have no qualms with allowing corporations to dictate how you live your life.


So, how much did you write the check for this month? And last month? How much will be graciously donating next month? Just curious...
Nice question, but liberals never give away their own money. They always give other people's money. It is just what they do.


Hardy har har.

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

www.washingtonpost.com... s/

Bill Gates makes world's biggest ever single charitable donation with £6.2bn for vaccines for children

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Donating Star Wars Billions Will Make George Lucas One Of The Biggest Givers Ever

www.forbes.com...

Margaret Cargill - Democrat- total given to charity? $6,000,000,000



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

You are really using Bill Gates as an example of a "good thing". Have you ever heard of agenda 21?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Awesome! Then you guys should have no problem paying for all of these giveaways that you advocate for. Bill Gates should insure 10,000 people and George Lucas another 10,000. Take all of the limosine liberals, confiscate their wealth and Robinhood it to the poor.

The reason that Socialism has failed in every single country that has tried it is because eventually, you run out of other people's money!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Not only does Bill Gates dump millions into jabbing children all over the world with poisonous vaccines, he also advocates for their poor health and death by promoting GMOs. The guy is REAL crusader for the poor.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother



[Tell me so, if they're so cheap, why don't all those people living in poverty buy them?

And tell me, why would you reject a system that covers more people, costs you less, have better outcomes - like that in France in the UK?

Here's what that link says about the plan you think is so great:


Catastrophic health insurance plans:
Limit your medical expenses in case of emergency
May offer affordable monthly premiums
Usually have a high annual deductible
May have higher out-of-pocket costs for covered services
Don't always provide coverage for preventive care

A catastrophic plan may be right for you if:
You have no pre-existing medical conditions
You're not on regular prescription drugs
You rarely see the doctor
You can't afford more robust coverage
You expect to have other coverage within 6-12 months
You only want coverage in case of emergency


Sounds like a horrible pile of # to me.
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I see you are deflecting from the fact that you were caught out being ignorant.

A lot of people buy them. Young, healthy people don't need to spend a lot of money on full coverage insurance so they can save a lot of money by protecting themselves from disasters but not on things that they don't need. It is quite logical.

Why don't poor people buy it? Probably the same reason why they don't buy lots of things.

Simply because the UK and French systems do not cost less or provide better outcomes. Sure, a user might perceive his OOP expense as "less" but his overall tax structure and government expense is more. Notice the debt and financial problems the government of France and the UK and Europe in general are having? This is because there is no free lunch.

Not deflecting. I did misread what you said, but then upon discovering your real point I found it even more absurd.

As for the inane claim that the financial problems in the EU are related to healthcare costs, all I can do is LOL.

The GOVERNMENT is funded by the taxpayers. The cost of healthcare is PAID FOR by taxes and is LESS per person, dramatically less, than in the US,

Nice try though.



The US spends 17.6% of it's GDP on healthcare. OECD average? 9.5.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Not only does Bill Gates dump millions into jabbing children all over the world with poisonous vaccines, he also advocates for their poor health and death by promoting GMOs. The guy is REAL crusader for the poor.


LOL. Your paranoia knows no bounds.

Tell me, what happened to polio?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Awesome! Then you guys should have no problem paying for all of these giveaways that you advocate for. Bill Gates should insure 10,000 people and George Lucas another 10,000. Take all of the limosine liberals, confiscate their wealth and Robinhood it to the poor.

The reason that Socialism has failed in every single country that has tried it is because eventually, you run out of other people's money!

.
Perhaps you can use some of your wealth and buy a dictionary. Then look up the word socialism.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Not only does Bill Gates dump millions into jabbing children all over the world with poisonous vaccines, he also advocates for their poor health and death by promoting GMOs. The guy is REAL crusader for the poor.


LOL. Your paranoia knows no bounds.

Tell me, what happened to polio?


I won't bore you with facts - you'd simply ignore them anyway and continue making things up that fit your ideals. But if you'd care to explore the facts, you could learn about how polio was in serious decline BEFORE a vaccine was even invented. In fact, many in the medical industry doubt the efficacy of the polio vaccine and believe it may have run itself out. Diseases do run their course and many simply fizzle out due our ability to develop appropriate immune responses.

Now, please do respond with some dissembling or a pointless ad hominem.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Awesome! Then you guys should have no problem paying for all of these giveaways that you advocate for. Bill Gates should insure 10,000 people and George Lucas another 10,000. Take all of the limosine liberals, confiscate their wealth and Robinhood it to the poor.

The reason that Socialism has failed in every single country that has tried it is because eventually, you run out of other people's money!

.
Perhaps you can use some of your wealth and buy a dictionary. Then look up the word socialism.


I know the definition of "Socialism", I don't need to look it up. But since you don't, I took the time to do it for you. Below is the Merriam-Webster definition of "Socialism". Feel free to ask me any questions and I'll do my best to continue your education.


Definition of SOCIALISM


1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
After reading the last several posts I can see that this is no longer a debate about insurance costs. It has become about which label (conservative or liberal, democrat or republican) has the bigger d**k. It is stupid. All the while you are ignoring the real problem of the people of the USA have allowed their lives to be corrupted and controlled by corporations. In this case, insurance companies who dictate our health. Wake people. Stop bickering and take a little responsibility for your fellow human being. We are all in this together whether you like it or not. I need you and you need me. Period.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Hawkmoon1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkmoon1972
I need you and you need me. Period.]
You may need me, but why exactly do I need you? What is it that you provide that I must have?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


We need each other because that is what makes a society. You can talk tough and try to act like you are some kind of bada*s but in the end you wouldn't survive long without society. The number of people who can successfully completely on their own is vanishingly small. And, in all probability you aren't in that group.
I need the rest of my society to assist in my survival just as much as you do. So take some responsibility for its health. You benefit from it your should contribute. If that means higher taxes so be it.






top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join