Insurance Companies Under Obama Health Care Question.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Insurance Companies Under Obama Health Care Question.
J

JU-ICE

Senior Member

259 posts
Mar 19, 2010 8:05 PM
Cleveland Buck wrote: The government has been in the student loan business for a long time already, along with grants and other handouts. Why do you think college tuition is so high?
Yes, but now they are the ones who will be deciding who get the loans, you will no longer be able to go to your bank for student loans.
Mar 19, 2010 8:05pm
B

BCSbunk

Senior Member

972 posts
Mar 20, 2010 10:37 AM
pinstriper wrote:
BCSbunk wrote:
tk421 wrote: I saw this question on another message board and I wanted to ask it here. I never thought of this but it makes sense. I think I read that the "fine' for not carrying insurance is like 2-2.5%. That would be A LOT cheaper than buying insurance.

The most likely version of Obama care requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "preexisting condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?
Hopefully this is what happens and the leeches (insurance companies) can stop taking money for nothing but being a middle man passing money from me to my doctor.

Hopefully insurance companies will be forced out of medicine and it is between the people and the doctor or hospital.
Either you are completely oblvivious to what is going on, or just plain don't understand it. The GOVERNMENT will become the new insurance company - they will stand between you and your doctor, and they will bankrupt the system in the process. If you want a system with no insurance at all, then you better be either a) extremely independently wealthy and can afford that heart attack surgery or cancer treatment or b) a very healthy person that bunkers in your house and never leaves - taking no risk for fear of having to come out of pocket for extreme costs.
Personally, I'd rather be able to pick my insurance company, based on competition throughout the country, to cover me in case I need it; I'll gladly pay the premiums.

I think you misunderstand. I did not say that I approve or support "Obamacare" I do not support the thieving Insurance companies who have driven prices while providing no service.

TO make it perfectly clear and this should be simple english. I do not want middle men between me and my doctor. That is english and should be simple to comprehend.

That means no government and no insurance companies. Just because I did not complain about the government portion does not mean that I am in favor of it I simply did not state anything about it and addressed the insurance portion.
Mar 20, 2010 10:37am
C

cbus4life

Ignorant

2,849 posts
Mar 20, 2010 11:02 AM
Captain Cavalier wrote: And with the majority of the polls saying Americans DON'T want this, our so called representatives are ignoring them. This just amazes me that the voice of "WE The People" means nothing. If I elect you to represent me then I would expect and demand that you do just that. Otherwise I can only assume that you are in it for you're own personal gain.

I heard on the radio where one rep said that I might not get re-elected but I'm going to do what's right. ?????????????? What's right???????????. Representing the people and ignoring the majority of what they want is right??????????

And why the rush? If it's so great, then it will pass in time. Why the threat of "back door" passage?

Amazing...and unfortunate for our country.
Will have to disagree...Edmund Burke is the man when dealing with this complaint.

Not saying that a representative shouldn't take the opinions of the populace into consideration, and "hold it close to his heart," but he shouldn't blindly vote based on opinion polls.

And, granted, Burke lived in a time where it wasn't as easy for those "300 miles away" to gain information about what was being debated.

But, still, i love how he lays this out.

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
Mar 20, 2010 11:02am
P

pinstriper

Senior Member

225 posts
Mar 20, 2010 2:15 PM
BCSbunk wrote:

I think you misunderstand. I did not say that I approve or support "Obamacare" I do not support the thieving Insurance companies who have driven prices while providing no service.

TO make it perfectly clear and this should be simple english. I do not want middle men between me and my doctor. That is english and should be simple to comprehend.

That means no government and no insurance companies. Just because I did not complain about the government portion does not mean that I am in favor of it I simply did not state anything about it and addressed the insurance portion.
Ok, no insurance companies. You could not afford the cost of certain procedures unless insurance would help out. If you are indepentantly wealthy and could afford it, then great...but most aren't. If you think you could just negotiate a price with your doctor, then do it. Don't carry insurance and if you need service, then just pay out of pocket. There's nothing stopping you - and I'm being serious. You don't need insurance companies to fail in order to make sure there's nothing between you and your doctor.
Mar 20, 2010 2:15pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Mar 20, 2010 11:13 PM
pinstriper wrote: The slippery slope starts if this thing passes. It's not just healthcare that will be regulated, but anything that could cause higher costs in healthcare. Examples: people's diets, smoking, car accidents (seat belts), alcohol consumption....the list goes on and on. It could be 20 yrs down the road, but if we get eventually transformed into a single-payer, then that single payer will have a say in ANYTHING that effects costs. Anyone with a brain realizes that this will effect our choices/liberties....that's the battle. This healthcare reform bill is a FUNDAMENTAL change in American society as we know it. Government officials think that they know what's better for the people than the people living thier own lives/making their own choices. That's been the Liberal agenda for close to a century now, and they've almost achieved it.
Bingo ---- we are doomed ............................. unless there is a revolution.
Mar 20, 2010 11:13pm
C

captain_obvious

Member

82 posts
Mar 22, 2010 12:50 AM
BCSbunk wrote:
pinstriper wrote:
BCSbunk wrote:
tk421 wrote: I saw this question on another message board and I wanted to ask it here. I never thought of this but it makes sense. I think I read that the "fine' for not carrying insurance is like 2-2.5%. That would be A LOT cheaper than buying insurance.

The most likely version of Obama care requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "preexisting condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?
Hopefully this is what happens and the leeches (insurance companies) can stop taking money for nothing but being a middle man passing money from me to my doctor.

Hopefully insurance companies will be forced out of medicine and it is between the people and the doctor or hospital.
Either you are completely oblvivious to what is going on, or just plain don't understand it. The GOVERNMENT will become the new insurance company - they will stand between you and your doctor, and they will bankrupt the system in the process. If you want a system with no insurance at all, then you better be either a) extremely independently wealthy and can afford that heart attack surgery or cancer treatment or b) a very healthy person that bunkers in your house and never leaves - taking no risk for fear of having to come out of pocket for extreme costs.
Personally, I'd rather be able to pick my insurance company, based on competition throughout the country, to cover me in case I need it; I'll gladly pay the premiums.

I think you misunderstand. I did not say that I approve or support "Obamacare" I do not support the thieving Insurance companies who have driven prices while providing no service.

TO make it perfectly clear and this should be simple english. I do not want middle men between me and my doctor. That is english and should be simple to comprehend.

That means no government and no insurance companies. Just because I did not complain about the government portion does not mean that I am in favor of it I simply did not state anything about it and addressed the insurance portion.
Okay, now I get it, you just don't understand how insurance works, and just fall for rheteric. It is not supposed to be a middle man, it is a company that arranges a pooling of members to spread out risk. They get enough members under their umbrella paying a consistent low amount (premium) compared to what could happen, so that when they have to pay out of their ass, they are fine. As a simple illustration, if 1 out of 100 of their members incurs $100,000 in medical fees in a year (Open Heart, etc.) and the other 99 never went to a Dr., hospital, prescriptions, etc, they would have had to charge every member $1,000 in premiums to break even BEFORE commission to Sales Rep, administration cost, advertising cost, etc.

Go to a Major Medical Plan (if you are still allowed to). Depending on age, health, etc you could pay as low as $100/month, and are covered for anything over $2,500 for example. I used to be on it and paid into an HSA, it is my preference and sounds like it would be yours. Now my company pays for 75% now and the 25% I am responsible is outrageous since my HQ is in Mass. I like my former plan better.
Mar 22, 2010 12:50am
C

captain_obvious

Member

82 posts
Mar 22, 2010 12:51 AM
I find it funny that they put in the income percentage. 10-1 odds that was aimed at Rush who self insures, as do many companies, counties, cities.
Mar 22, 2010 12:51am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:10 AM
QuakerOats wrote:

Bingo ---- we are doomed ............................. unless there is a revolution.

If there is, count me in.
Mar 22, 2010 1:10am
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:32 AM
dwccrew wrote:
QuakerOats wrote:

Bingo ---- we are doomed ............................. unless there is a revolution.

If there is, count me in.
The problem is always over who will be the first to start it.
Mar 22, 2010 1:32am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:34 AM
eersandbeers wrote:
dwccrew wrote:
QuakerOats wrote:

Bingo ---- we are doomed ............................. unless there is a revolution.

If there is, count me in.
The problem is always over who will be the first to start it.
When, not if, the U.S. loses its AAA rating, we will see it. Bye bye borrowing money from China.
Mar 22, 2010 1:34am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:36 AM
eersandbeers wrote:
dwccrew wrote:
QuakerOats wrote:

Bingo ---- we are doomed ............................. unless there is a revolution.

If there is, count me in.
The problem is always over who will be the first to start it.
Generally people are just written off as "crazy militia", but I think after what has transpired over the past several years, people will welcome it. The government is sealing its own fate. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rouge military group turn on the govt. in the next decade or so.

Not saying it will happen, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.
Mar 22, 2010 1:36am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:45 AM
When the U.S. loses its AAA rating the dollar will be finished. Cut off from the cheap money they borrow now, they will have to print trillions of dollars just to run the massive government. The dollar will be replaced as the reserve currency around the world, flooding the market with dollars. Hyperinflation kicks in. Gas is $25/gal. Milk is $20/gal. People are rioting in the streets because they can't afford to feed themselves. The army will eventually be sent in to put down the riots. Then the army will stick around to keep the riots down. Videos will get around of the brutality. People will be pissed. Then they will cut off the internet to keep the videos from spreading. All of a sudden we are living in a third world country. Finding someone to start a revolution won't be a problem.
Mar 22, 2010 1:45am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:49 AM
Cleveland Buck wrote: When the U.S. loses its AAA rating the dollar will be finished. Cut off from the cheap money they borrow now, they will have to print trillions of dollars just to run the massive government. The dollar will be replaced as the reserve currency around the world, flooding the market with dollars. Hyperinflation kicks in. Gas is $25/gal. Milk is $20/gal. People are rioting in the streets because they can't afford to feed themselves. The army will eventually be sent in to put down the riots. Then the army will stick around to keep the riots down. Videos will get around of the brutality. People will be pissed. Then they will cut off the internet to keep the videos from spreading. All of a sudden we are living in a third world country. Finding someone to start a revolution won't be a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen in less than 30 years.
Mar 22, 2010 1:49am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:53 AM
I doubt it will take 30 years. More like 10-15 years.
Mar 22, 2010 1:53am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 22, 2010 1:56 AM
We will be well passed 20 trillion in national deficit, not counting unfunded liabilities, maybe before Obama leaves office if he has a second term. We would probably pass the 30 trillion mark in the 2025-2030 area. Investors will not continue lending the U.S. money indefinitely, despite what everyone says about us having the "strongest" economy. Even Rome fell.
Mar 22, 2010 1:56am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 22, 2010 2:02 AM
We don't have the strongest economy now, and we certainly won't when Barack gets done with it.

And we will be right around $20 trillion in debt by the end of his second term, 2016. No one will be able to get elected and cut the entitlements, they will only grow. You are looking at $30 trillion shortly after 2020 and probably over $40 trillion by 2025. Debt double the GDP (assuming the economy grows a paltry $6 trillion over the next 15 years, which it probably won't.) We won't be able to borrow lunch money.
Mar 22, 2010 2:02am
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Mar 23, 2010 4:07 AM
As Obama and the Dems have aptly stated, the current health care system is unsustainable. Something had to be done, and the Repubs didn't do a goddamn thing when they were in power. The new legislation is not perfect but it is far better than doing nothing.

There is a lot in this bill that will help me personally, and that's why I'm so much in favor of it.

I'm not worried about this country. My parents had to suffer through a great deal more than we are, back in the 1930's and they survived. We will, too.
Mar 23, 2010 4:07am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 23, 2010 4:15 AM
FairwoodKing wrote: As Obama and the Dems have aptly stated, the current health care system is unsustainable. Something had to be done, and the Repubs didn't do a goddamn thing when they were in power. The new legislation is not perfect but it is far better than doing nothing.

There is a lot in this bill that will help me personally, and that's why I'm so much in favor of it.

I'm not worried about this country. My parents had to suffer through a great deal more than we are, back in the 1930's and they survived. We will, too.
That's a good reason for the government to pass a bill. It's better than nothing. This fucking country is so screwed. Shit, let them do whatever the hell they want, something is better than nothing, even if that something is pure crap. You won't have to deal with what is coming. My generation will. We will go bankrupt. The government can not stop spending. They can not raise taxes enough to cover their spending and pay off the debt. The borrowing will not continue forever.
Mar 23, 2010 4:15am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 23, 2010 10:20 AM
FairwoodKing wrote: As Obama and the Dems have aptly stated, the current health care system is unsustainable. Something had to be done, and the Repubs didn't do a goddamn thing when they were in power. The new legislation is not perfect but it is far better than doing nothing.

There is a lot in this bill that will help me personally, and that's why I'm so much in favor of it.

I'm not worried about this country. My parents had to suffer through a great deal more than we are, back in the 1930's and they survived. We will, too.
I saw your state of Washington has joined the suit against the Federal government over this legislation. Just remember the Federal government is more conservative on social issues than the state of Washington. The eyes of 49 other states representatives are now concerned and will have a say in your states health care. Who and what is covered for instance.
Mar 23, 2010 10:20am
Websurfinbird's avatar

Websurfinbird

Chosen Person

656 posts
Mar 23, 2010 10:54 AM
I will admit this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that one of the major things that drives up the cost of insurance is keeping folks that are essentially vegetables on life support for years. I'm not saying pull the plug on everyone right away, but if you are an 80-year-old woman and you're alive only by the help of machines, you have no awareness of what's going on and essentially have a horrible quality of life.

I have a great aunt in that situation, and my great uncle will just not let her die. It is really sad in my opinion. I know for a fact that if he had to pay to keep her in such a condition, he wouldn't.

I'm not saying you should put a price on human life, or that there should be a general rule about when to "pull the plug." But I do think there needs to be a change in how our society views death and dying.
Mar 23, 2010 10:54am
C

captain_obvious

Member

82 posts
Mar 24, 2010 12:02 AM
Watch your step... its slippery up there...

pretty soon the govt. decides who is worthy of saving concious or not.
Mar 24, 2010 12:02am