Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[JimboDaMan]

For all of those here saying conservatives are stupid for saying people will lose their insurance, you're just wrong, and it's acknowledged by the CBO, no less.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's what most of them mean.

[Bang]

Which is why I want a health insurance system that isn't tied to employment. I want my employer to give me money to put towards health insurance as I see fit. That way I'm spending my own money on my own health insurance, meaning I'm looking out for the best price and the best service. With employment-based health insurance, someone else is spending their money on me, which means they're looking for the cheapest, not the best quality. If we're spending government money, then we're spending someone else's money on ourselves so we'll get the best thing available costs-be-damned since it's not our money.

If we chose our own health insurance, companies would have to cater to us to keep our business or risk losing us to someone who will treat us better.

Well, again, I have no idea how you figure insurance companies do anything for you now.

They'll make you feel special til you need them. Then you're nothing but a liability. You move from asset to expense.

You already have to have them, just by the operation of our society. A broken leg can break a family if they aren't covered. A traffic accident can result in financial ruin if not adequately covered.

You can 'choose' to not have them, but all you've done is choose to play the odds against needing them, and you'll lose. (and you can't choose not to have car insurance,, unless you choose not to drive. And what happens to your car insurance the second you use them to pay for anything?

You can choose the most gold encrusted premium plan there is, and the first thing they'll try to do is **** you out of it when you need it most.

As it is now, employers provide health insurance for most people, and most people don't have much choice as to which company is chosen for them, other than to find a new job if they don't like it, or buy a policy on their own, which is cost hilarious.. i mean prohibitive.

~Bang

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 01:44 AM ----------

Off, but on topic.. .I can't wait for John Stewart tonight.

~Bang

Edited June 29, 2012 by Bang

[PokerPacker]

Well, again, I have no idea how you figure insurance companies do anything for you now.

They'll make you feel special til you need them. Then you're nothing but a liability. You move from asset to expense.

You already have to have them, just by the operation of our society. A broken leg can break a family if they aren't covered. A traffic accident can result in financial ruin if not adequately covered.

You can 'choose' to not have them, but all you've done is choose to play the odds against needing them, and you'll lose. (and you can't choose not to have car insurance,, unless you choose not to drive. And what happens to your car insurance the second you use them to pay for anything?

You can choose the most gold encrusted premium plan there is, and the first thing they'll try to do is **** you out of it when you need it most.

As it is now, employers provide health insurance for most people, and most people don't have much choice as to which company is chosen for them, other than to find a new job if they don't like it, or buy a policy on their own, which is cost hilarious.. i mean prohibitive.

~Bang

A couple points mixed in there, but I didn't find a good place to partition so I'll just tackle them from here.

First, about what companies do now. I agree, which is why I do want change, but this isn't aimed at fixing that. As you said, they do what they can to screw you out of coverage as is, sticking you with the bill AND insurance payments. Sounds to me like you're rolling the dice whether or not you have insurance, the question is just how many sides on the dice? I feel I already covered the employer-based insurance part in the post you quoted, so I won't repeat myself.

[Corcaigh]

With employment-based health insurance, someone else is spending their money on me, which means they're looking for the cheapest, not the best quality.

I would prefer if insurance was not tied to employment, but this simply isn't true. Any smart employer knows that giving their valued employees a ****ty health package is tantamount to asking them to leave. People with kids, or family members with serious conditions care as much or more about the quality of the health plan as they do their salary. It's often hard to tell what your precise market worth is, but a ****ty health plan is pretty easy to spot.

[PeterMP]

I've priced individual health care plans, and I'm GLAD that I get health care through my employer. Even if I figure they'd give me the money they are paying into it, I couldn't get what I'm getting now at close to the same costs, especially w/ two young kids.

I LOVE that volume discount my employer is essentially getting.

I wish I could get more things through my employer.

[PokerPacker]

I've priced individual health care plans, and I'm GLAD that I get health care through my employer. Even if I figure they'd give me the money they are paying into it, I couldn't get what I'm getting now at close to the same costs, especially w/ two young kids.

I LOVE that volume discount my employer is essentially getting.

I wish I could get more things through my employer.

That's precisely the problem. Why can employers get such a discount on health insurance? This isn't a product where mass-producing them is cheaper than manufacturing one at a time. It is a service and as such each customer comes at its own cost.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's precisely the problem. Why can employers get such a discount on health insurance? This isn't a product where mass-producing them is cheaper than manufacturing one at a time. It is a service and as such each customer comes at its own cost.

Their logic is that the volume of service they direct to providers should allow them to negotiate a discount....if you don't have any coverage then you're screwed because now you getbcharged the inflated costs which are jacked up in order to compensate for the negotiated price drop.

[PeterMP]

That's precisely the problem. Why can employers get such a discount on health insurance? This isn't a product where mass-producing them is cheaper than manufacturing one at a time. It is a service and as such each customer comes at its own cost.

My employeer is delivering thousands of people into one of 3 plans.

There is no guarantee you'd get that sort of volume into only 3 plans on the open market. More plans means more administrative costs.

In addition, there are issues with respect to billing. I never get a bill or any sort of statement from my health insurance company. It all goes to my employer. I do get bills and statements from my car and home owners insurance.

There's an issue with my health insurance. I deal with my employer and they deal with the health insurance company. I've dealt on a one-on-one basis with people associated with my home owners and my car insurance.

There's essentially no business that doesn't benefit from being able to get lot's of business through one agreement rather than making lot's of individual agreements.

Even in terms of over head costs, the lot's of individual agreements is going to cost more.

Edited June 29, 2012 by PeterMP

[Maximus71]

Operation Canadian Bacon is on, watch out you canadian goofy ****s, the republicans are coming to invade... Question, what is Canada's insurance policy? People leaving US might not like it so much, I guess we ll have to let our borders open up to illegal aliens to fill up the jobs left behind :-)

Edited June 29, 2012 by Maximus71

[Bang]

That's precisely the problem. Why can employers get such a discount on health insurance? This isn't a product where mass-producing them is cheaper than manufacturing one at a time. It is a service and as such each customer comes at its own cost.

Basic capitalism gives you buying power in numbers.

~Bang

[chipwhich]

That's precisely the problem. Why can employers get such a discount on health insurance? This isn't a product where mass-producing them is cheaper than manufacturing one at a time. It is a service and as such each customer comes at its own cost.

As an employer in MD, my average cost for a family is $1500 a month. That's no volume discount. Not sure why you guys think employers get some free ride.

[LadySkinsFan]

I've priced individual health care plans, and I'm GLAD that I get health care through my employer. Even if I figure they'd give me the money they are paying into it, I couldn't get what I'm getting now at close to the same costs, especially w/ two young kids.

I LOVE that volume discount my employer is essentially getting.

I wish I could get more things through my employer.

Think of the volume discount if millions were in the public option!

[Major Harris]

You'll be living in a Communist Socialist country.

thanks for all of your help.

maybe you were just being sarcastic; i sure hope so because i've never said anything of the sort. it was an honest question.

[chipwhich]

Think of the volume discount if millions were in the public option!

It is never decided on quantity. For health insurance providers it's based on group health. Insurance companies don't want to pay for unhealthy individuals. Quantity never > quality of the members of the group. Nice thought though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

thanks for all of your help.

maybe you were just being sarcastic; i sure hope so because i've never said anything of the sort. it was an honest question.

I was absolutely being sarcastic.

[thebluefood]

Jon Stewart ripping CNN a new one. This is beautiful.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why, those damned dirty government-run HMOs...!

I deal with HMOs and I deal with the government. I'd rather deal with the government.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 10:10 PM ----------

Just waiting for the post a few years from now when someone in this thread gets denied service because a bureaucrat says no......

I manage a team that writes 100 appeals regarding lack of authorization or lack of medical necessity every week. Woat is the difference between a government bureacrat or an actuary in an HMO?

[Major Harris]

I was absolutely being sarcastic.

fair enough. i just hoped i wasn't lumped into the group ready to jump off a cliff. :cheers:

[PokerPacker]

fair enough. i just hoped i wasn't lumped into the group ready to jump off a cliff. :cheers:

where's this cliff I can jump off of? I want to break a leg now while I can before I have to buy health insurance :evil:

[mistertim]

where's this cliff I can jump off of? I want to break a leg now while I can before I have to buy health insurance :evil:

Just don't go around whining about your leg and going to the emergency room. I don't want my tax dollars paying for your problems. :pfft:

[PokerPacker]

Just don't go around whining about your leg and going to the emergency room. I don't want my tax dollars paying for your problems. :pfft:

That is exactly what I'm going to do. I'll then personally send you a copy of my bill accompanied with a picture of me flipping the camera off.

[amm0409]

did we just get taxed again

[thebluefood]

did we just get taxed again

Only if you don't have health insurance by 2014...I think.

Oh, and go Pirates.

Edited June 29, 2012 by thebluefood

[Koolblue13]

did we just get taxed again

Yes,

---------- Post added June-29th-2012 at 12:58 AM ----------

I've been in the restaurant business for most of my life. I've never had anybody offer to pay my insurance. I payed it for a year at $400 a month.

I had a biopsy on my stomach and they covered $100 out of $1,1000. I broke my leg/ankle/foot, they covered $6,000 of $17,000.

Why should I pay into having my own insurance? It's cheaper not to. If I get a major disease, I walk away. Why should I have it?

[bearrock]

I'll be upfront. I consider myself a left leaning independent. I also have concerns about whether the ACA will accomplish its goals. What I do not have problems with, however, are the goals pursued by the law.

First, I have no problem with the general proposition that anyone who wants health insurance should be able to get one. In fact, I'll go further, I think everyone should be able to receive health care when they need one. Why? Because we as a country do not have the guts or callousness, however you want to call it, to turn people away at the emergency room. Which results in a fundamental problem. If I pay for health insurance and you don't, in effect, I end up paying for it when you show up for health care at anywhere other than a free clinic. Now, I'm willing to pay for those who cannot afford health insurance (Under the ACA, I believe all below 133% of the federal poverty level is eligible for expanded medicaid, people between 100% to 400% of the FPL gets subsidy to get health insurance and is not subject to the individual mandate). To an extent, we already do this via medicaid and SCHIP. But, if you can afford to pay for insurance and don't pay, either don't ask me to pay for your health care when you end up needing one or don't cry over forking over few percentage of your income. I'm willing to bet your 2.5% tax/penalty doesn't come close to covering the cost of health care others are covering on your behalf.

As I said, if you can afford health insurance, you should get it. This is complicated by the fact that as it currently stands, not everyone has the same access to health care. As others have mentioned, big companies, via force of capitalism, can get greatly discounted rates. And federal employees can get similarly great rates and wide range of choices via FEHB. Individuals and small businesses are squeezed and may find insurance cost prohibitive. Unless we provide an affordable option, it would be wrong to punish those who can't afford it.

ACA attempts to address this issue by community rating system. In essence, regardless of whether you are getting your insurance via major company, federal government, or individually, insurance companies may only use certain factors to adjust your rate (age, location, smoking preference, and family size). Meaning, you are now on equal footing regardless of how you are getting your insurance. I'm sure insurance companies will do their utmost to find a loophole or maybe they will just jack up premiums across the board without discrimination. We'll see.

About covering individuals with preexisting conditions, no annual cap, no lifetime coverage? When viewed from health insurance as a business, it is problematic and indeed it may raise the premium on everybody. But again, if we are not willing to turn the sick away at the emergency room due to lack of health insurance, we might as well bite the bullet and deal with the realities.

To me, the country still has not addressed the fundamental issue underlying the health insurance industry. When viewed from a business perspective, some risks are simply uninsurable, at least not within reasonable cost. No one would expect a life insurance company to insure a 100 year old on his/her death bed. No one would expect an insurance company to issue a homowner's policy while the home is burning down in a fire. When it comes to health care, however, we live with the fact that we make no exceptions. We don't turn away people at the emergency room because they can't afford it. We treat them and redistribute the cost to the rest. At some point, health care ceases to become an insurance industry issue and becomes a social issue. We seem to agree on providing care to all. How are we going to go about it? Some aspects of providing universal care is incompatible with for-profit insurance industry. I think the ACA is trying to segregate the unprofitable (high-risk pool, medicaid, etc) from the profitable. Left unchecked, premium would continue to go up and make insurance untenable for more and more. Will ACA be successful in reigning in the cost? I don't know, but I sure hope it works. It seems to have in Massachusetts.

As for Republicans decrying ACA, I have but one thing to say: Put forth your detailed alternative. Don't give me a line of bull on how we need health care reform, but ACA is not the right way. Unless you have your detailed alternative, I don't want to hear your moaning. You say status quo is unacceptable and agree with lot of the features of the ACA, but don't provide any specifics as to how to reform. Republicans have no credibility until they come up with a detailed plan.

Candidate Romney's press conference basically said if he becomes President, he'll repeal the ACA and put forth a plan that keeps all the popular provisions intact. You've been running for president for years. If you have a plan that can accomplish all the popular provisions, keep the premiums in check, without adding heavily to the federal deficit, show it to us now. Because in the past, you've been suggesting tax penalties for those who don't get health insurance. According to the Supreme Court, that is what the ACA already does.