Romney Advisor: No Obamacare Repeal

[Sallow]

Can you explain how having more people buying into the private insurance system is going to "collapse" it?

That should be good.

If you lose money off every customer, bankruptcy is inevitable. You can't make it up in volume.

So let me get this straight.

They kick people that are "money losers" and just take on healthy people until they get sick.

Got it.

This works out well..because?

 

[bripat9643]

Any bills that are passed by just one party is always a bad bill.
The Majority of the nation wants this very partisan bill repealed and a Health Care bill that has bipartisan input into it.
Dems seem to have forgotten that this nation has 2 parties not just theirs.

Actually, the bills that have bipartisan support are the worst, like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[bripat9643]

That should be good.

If you lose money off every customer, bankruptcy is inevitable. You can't make it up in volume.

So let me get this straight.

They kick people that are "money losers" and just take on healthy people until they get sick.

Got it.

This works out well..because?

You asked how Obamacare would make private insurance companies go bankrupt. I told you.

 

[Missourian]

Actually, I have a different view onhealthcare insurance than pretty much anyone out there...on both sides of the aisle.

Healthcare insurance is supposed to be that...INSURANCE.

Insuracne for something out of the ordinary. Like auto insurance; home insurance; etc...

It should be ONLY for catastrophic.

Not for annual visits...inoculations...things such as that.

Those things should be deemed as "cost of living" such as rent, food, etc.

My father in law was a pediatrician. He used to have people bring thier kids in becasue they had a runny nose....5 yeqar olds with a runny nose....and they would come in, he would say they have a runny nose...and the insuracne company had to pay out 1000 bucks...

He has had parenbts bring theuir kids in with a bloody knee......he would clean it up and put a bandaid on it...and the insurance company had to pay.

My practitioner would laugh at how he has the same patients coming in week after week with hang nails, chapped lips, mild rashes....and why? Becuase it gave them something to do and they didnt need to pay for it...their insurance company paid for it...

The way I see it? Insurance is supposed to be INSURANCE....in case something terrible happens.

I agree.

I worked for a company that required an annual physical that was paid for by my company insurance.

I went in for my appointment and presented my insurance card.

I lived in a small town where everyone knew everyone, and I knew the receptionist.

She asked me if I was sure my insurance company paid for physical, because the cash price was $80 but the insurance price was closer to $300...and if the insurance company refused to pay, that $300 would come back on me to pay in full.

ah...but here is the irony....

Your company was paying 5000 a year premiuum for you...and if you stayed healthy, it was to save 300 for the one doctor visit...and if YOU had to pay the 5000 you were doing it to save 300

Me?

I would rather pay 300 a year for the doctor visit and 3000 a year premium for insurance that would cover ONLY catastrophic.

I did stay healthy, and I am still healthy today...5 months shy of 40 and all I've had beyond routine visits is 10 stitches.

That's why, being self employed today, I only carry catastrophic care insurance.

For me, it's the right choice...one that will be stripped from me thanks to the nanny state liberals.

Include Romney in with those nanny-state liberals, first with Romneycare and now no repeal of Obamacare...he is included with the enemies of freedom of personal choice.

 

[peach174]

Any bills that are passed by just one party is always a bad bill.
The Majority of the nation wants this very partisan bill repealed and a Health Care bill that has bipartisan input into it.
Dems seem to have forgotten that this nation has 2 parties not just theirs.

Actually, the bills that have bipartisan support are the worst, like Social Security and Medicare.

If congress critters had kept their greedy hands off of the surplus of SSI, we would have been fine with the program.

 

[Dragon]

where do you come up with this stuff?

Both sides of the aisle, the insurance industry and medical professionals all agree on one thing...

The individual mandate was a must to counter the abolishmnet of pre existing conditions clauses.

That's what I said, Jarhead. The mandate doesn't endanger the insurance industry. It was necessary to counter other things that cost the industry money.

I never watch MSNBC (or anything else on television), and you haven't posted anything that disagrees with me here.

 

[Sallow]

If you lose money off every customer, bankruptcy is inevitable. You can't make it up in volume.

So let me get this straight.

They kick people that are "money losers" and just take on healthy people until they get sick.

Got it.

This works out well..because?

You asked how Obamacare would make private insurance companies go bankrupt. I told you.

Actually you didn't.

They've got a plethora of new customers in the form of healthy people that didn't want to pay for health care. By the way..they don't want to get rid of the indivdual mandate.

What they want to get rid of is paying for sick people.

 

[Greenbeard]

people will not be able to afford the premiums opening the door to a public option...and all will be forced into it...not by chouice....financially, they will not be able to handle the higher premiums.

What you're likely to see in the group market is a faster movement toward high deductible plans, which is apparently very much what you want to see. Beyond the obvious pressures to keep health costs down, employers are facing two large incentives for pursuing lower-premium options: 1) an affordability threshold their employees' premiums must stay below if they're to avoid penalty payments, and 2) an excise tax on expensive health plans. The obvious way to satisfy all of those pressures is to shift toward higher deductible, lower premium plans.

In the exchanges (the new-and-improved individual market, which remains much smaller than the group market), people with incomes under 400% of the federal poverty level are eligible for financial support, the value of which is competitively bid, i.e. it's set by the market. Those folks never spend more than a certain percentage of their income on premiums. But they, too, are likely to see sizable deductibles, though they're eligible for some help with the cost-sharing.

Higher deductibles--it'll be like conservative heaven.

Capitalism 101...but that means nothing to most on the left.

That's why, being self employed today, I only carry catastrophic care insurance.

For me, it's the right choice...one that will be stripped from me thanks to the nanny state liberals.

Who's stripping what from you?

 

[bripat9643]

You asked how Obamacare would make private insurance companies go bankrupt. I told you.

Actually you didn't.

They've got a plethora of new customers in the form of healthy people that didn't want to pay for health care.

What they want to get rid of is paying for sick people.

I'll explain this real slow so even you can't understand it:

New customers don't matter if you lose money on every one. They also have to cover a lot of sick people.

By the way..they don't want to get rid of the indivdual mandate.

So what you're saying is that we should write the healthcare law whatever way the insurance companies want?

 

[Greenbeard]

I'll explain this real slow so even you can't understand it:

New customers don't matter if you lose money on every one. They also have to cover a lot of sick people.

By the way..they don't want to get rid of the indivdual mandate.

So what you're saying is that we should write the healthcare law whatever way the insurance companies want?

Is the health insurance industry going out of business or did it get exactly what it wanted? Or all of the above? None of the above?

 

[JoeB131]

where do you come up with this stuff?

Both sides of the aisle, the insurance industry and medical professionals all agree on one thing...

The individual mandate was a must to counter the abolishmnet of pre existing conditions clauses.

That's what I said, Jarhead. The mandate doesn't endanger the insurance industry. It was necessary to counter other things that cost the industry money.

I never watch MSNBC (or anything else on television), and you haven't posted anything that disagrees with me here.

It doesn't endanger the insurance industry, in fact, the insurance industry is all for it. What endangers the insurance industry is that they have a lot less latitude in being able to reject claims. Since ObamaCare does nothing to address the underlying problem, which for those playing along at home is that medical inflation is three time regular inflation, all the mandate does is prolong the death agony of private insurance by forcing people into the system who don't really want to be there.

So, really, all ObamaCare has done is turn insurance carriers into public utilities.

at some point, very soon, the insurance companies will realize there's no money to be made in insuing an aging population, and they'll beg the government to take it all off their hands.

 

[KissMy]

H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act may cost $210 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. That act would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) that are related to health care. Both of those laws were enacted in March 2010...

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).1 By comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period.2 The difference between the two estimates for the 10-year projection periods is primarily attributable to the different time periods they cover. Over the eight years that are common to the two analyses (2012-2019), enactment of PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was projected last March to reduce federal deficits by $132 billion, whereas the repeal of that legislation is projected now to increase deficits by $119 billion. The net increase in deficits (shown in Table 1) from enacting H.R. 2 has the same three major components as the net decrease in deficits that was estimated to result from enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act.