Why Obamacare Will Make You Poorer

[Bern80]

LOL, I said what? I said, and have always said we are already paying for the care of the uninsured. When did I ever say otherwise?

I would beg the question, why change?

Why change from the way healthcare was before? Because we were paying for the uninsured in a VERY inefficient and expensive manner and it needed to be done better/cheaper.

And you admitted we'll still be doing that. How can this way of doing it be defined as better an cheaper. I'm still paying for them and my premiums are going to continue to increase as a result. I fail to see where better and cheaper enter into the equation.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well you did. You said exactly what I've been arguing. It doesn't get those who aren't paying to pay it just changes who the burden for paying is on. In short, raising permiums for all of us to defer the costs of those that can't pay. Again glad you admit this policy sacrafices the many for the sake of the few.

LOL, I said what? I said, and have always said we are already paying for the care of the uninsured. When did I ever say otherwise?

It would beg the question, why change? Does it really change it. You were complaining our health care premiums were increasing paying for these bullet without insurance. And a good solution to you as a piece legislation that covers the people that can't pay by........ummm........increasing our premiums? And you wonder why I find you wholly illogical.

You should research how hospitals deal with catastrophic bills. If your private policy maxes out at $500,000 and you accrue $1,000,000 in bills, the insurance company pays out the max and the hospital is stuck with the un-enviable position of trying to collect. Most hospitals don't want to start foreclosing on people because of their bills. They aren't in the position to become banks that acquire land and it's terrible public policy.

And you wonder why 10 stitches at the ER costs over $1000.

This issue is so much more complicated then talking points people toss out.

 

[RDD_1210]

I would beg the question, why change?

Why change from the way healthcare was before? Because we were paying for the uninsured in a VERY inefficient and expensive manner and it needed to be done better/cheaper.

And you admitted we'll still be doing that. How can this way of doing it be defined as better an cheaper. I'm still paying for them and my premiums are going to continue to increase as a result. I fail to see where better and cheaper enter into the equation.

Yes of course we're still going to be paying for those who can't afford it. I've never stated otherwise, what exactly did I admit?

I've outlined before how this legislation will reduce costs compared to before. Is it perfect? Not at all, but it should be a definite first step towards improving a severely broken system.

How exactly does this legislation raise your private insurance premiums?

 

[RDD_1210]

LOL, I said what? I said, and have always said we are already paying for the care of the uninsured. When did I ever say otherwise?

It would beg the question, why change? Does it really change it. You were complaining our health care premiums were increasing paying for these bullet without insurance. And a good solution to you as a piece legislation that covers the people that can't pay by........ummm........increasing our premiums? And you wonder why I find you wholly illogical.

You should research how hospitals deal with catastrophic bills. If your private policy maxes out at $500,000 and you accrue $1,000,000 in bills, the insurance company pays out the max and the hospital is stuck with the un-enviable position of trying to collect. Most hospitals don't want to start foreclosing on people because of their bills. They aren't in the position to become banks that acquire land and it's terrible public policy.

And you wonder why 10 stitches at the ER costs over $1000.

This issue is so much more complicated then talking points people toss out.

I've already explained this to him in great detail in another thread. He pretty much glossed over and ignored it and ended up harping about the "constitutionality" of it all.

 

[Bern80]

Yes of course we're still going to be paying for those who can't afford it. I've never stated otherwise, what exactly did I admit?

I've outlined before how this legislation will reduce costs compared to before. Is it perfect? Not at all, but it should be a definite first step towards improving a severely broken system.

By what SPECIFIC mechanism does it do that? WHO'S costs does it reduce? Does it allow insurance companies to sell the same thing for less?

How exactly does this legislation raise your private insurance premiums?

Because my employer was just sadled with new regulations on what they have to provide us. And even though my coverage is good it apparently is not quite up to snuff with what government is demanding. So the cost of insuring employees is going to go up for business which will partially at least be passed on to the employees. the other mechanism by which my premiums will go up, you already told us. You said my premiums go up due to the cost of paying for those that can't (not that you ever actually explained how, starting to wonder if you're just making that up).

 

[Bern80]

It would beg the question, why change? Does it really change it. You were complaining our health care premiums were increasing paying for these bullet without insurance. And a good solution to you as a piece legislation that covers the people that can't pay by........ummm........increasing our premiums? And you wonder why I find you wholly illogical.

You should research how hospitals deal with catastrophic bills. If your private policy maxes out at $500,000 and you accrue $1,000,000 in bills, the insurance company pays out the max and the hospital is stuck with the un-enviable position of trying to collect. Most hospitals don't want to start foreclosing on people because of their bills. They aren't in the position to become banks that acquire land and it's terrible public policy.

And you wonder why 10 stitches at the ER costs over $1000.

This issue is so much more complicated then talking points people toss out.

I've already explained this to him in great detail in another thread. He pretty much glossed over and ignored it and ended up harping about the "constitutionality" of it all.

No you didn't. Cause I would really like to you. Basically YOU said 'it just does'. So let's use a real world example. One of these folks without insurance becomes ill and goes to the hospital, what happens next? Would he be treated at all? If so, to what extent?

 

[RDD_1210]

You should research how hospitals deal with catastrophic bills. If your private policy maxes out at $500,000 and you accrue $1,000,000 in bills, the insurance company pays out the max and the hospital is stuck with the un-enviable position of trying to collect. Most hospitals don't want to start foreclosing on people because of their bills. They aren't in the position to become banks that acquire land and it's terrible public policy.

And you wonder why 10 stitches at the ER costs over $1000.

This issue is so much more complicated then talking points people toss out.

I've already explained this to him in great detail in another thread. He pretty much glossed over and ignored it and ended up harping about the "constitutionality" of it all.

No you didn't. Cause I would really like to you. Basically YOU said 'it just does'. So let's use a real world example. One of these folks without insurance becomes ill and goes to the hospital, what happens next? Would he be treated at all? If so, to what extent?

Really? Is your memory that bad?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/152656-how-much-should-health-care-cost-should-it-cost-anything-3.html#post3260441

What I said in that post:

But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes of course we're still going to be paying for those who can't afford it. I've never stated otherwise, what exactly did I admit?

I've outlined before how this legislation will reduce costs compared to before. Is it perfect? Not at all, but it should be a definite first step towards improving a severely broken system.

By what SPECIFIC mechanism does it do that? WHO'S costs does it reduce? Does it allow insurance companies to sell the same thing for less?

How exactly does this legislation raise your private insurance premiums?

Because my employer was just sadled with new regulations on what they have to provide us. And even though my coverage is good it apparently is not quite up to snuff with what government is demanding. So the cost of insuring employees is going to go up for business which will partially at least be passed on to the employees. the other mechanism by which my premiums will go up, you already told us. You said my premiums go up due to the cost of paying for those that can't (not that you ever actually explained how, starting to wonder if you're just making that up).

It reduces our costs because there are more people sharing the pooled risk. The more people sharing the risk, the cheaper it is for everyone. Do you understand how insurance works?

 

[Bern80]

It reduces our costs because there are more people sharing the pooled risk. The more people sharing the risk, the cheaper it is for everyone. Do you understand how insurance works?

I understand it USED to be a business arraingment I was allowed to enter into voluntarily.

Secondly, you haven't really solved the problem of the actual cost of something simply by subsidizing it. Do YOU understand how basic economics works?

 

[RDD_1210]

It reduces our costs because there are more people sharing the pooled risk. The more people sharing the risk, the cheaper it is for everyone. Do you understand how insurance works?

I understand it USED to be a business arraingment I was allowed to enter into voluntarily.

Secondly, you haven't really solved the problem of the actual cost of something simply by subsidizing it. Do YOU understand how basic economics works?

Please don't ignore me

 

[Bern80]

I've already explained this to him in great detail in another thread. He pretty much glossed over and ignored it and ended up harping about the "constitutionality" of it all.

No you didn't. Cause I would really like to you. Basically YOU said 'it just does'. So let's use a real world example. One of these folks without insurance becomes ill and goes to the hospital, what happens next? Would he be treated at all? If so, to what extent?

Really? Is your memory that bad?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/152656-how-much-should-health-care-cost-should-it-cost-anything-3.html#post3260441

What I said in that post:

But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.

So they will get a basic level of treatment to stabalize them. So if they can't pay even that, by what mechanism will the hospital be reimbursed for the service it provided?

 

[RDD_1210]

No you didn't. Cause I would really like to you. Basically YOU said 'it just does'. So let's use a real world example. One of these folks without insurance becomes ill and goes to the hospital, what happens next? Would he be treated at all? If so, to what extent?

Really? Is your memory that bad?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/152656-how-much-should-health-care-cost-should-it-cost-anything-3.html#post3260441

What I said in that post:

But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.

So they will get a basic level of treatment to stabalize them. So if they can't pay even that, by what mechanism will the hospital be reimbursed for the service it provided?

The hospital then charges more for all of their services to those who can pay (ie. those who have insurance) in order to cover those lost dollars, thus raising our rates because now our insurance companies have to pay out more to the hospital.

 

[Bern80]

Really? Is your memory that bad?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/152656-how-much-should-health-care-cost-should-it-cost-anything-3.html#post3260441

What I said in that post:

But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.

So they will get a basic level of treatment to stabalize them. So if they can't pay even that, by what mechanism will the hospital be reimbursed for the service it provided?

The hospital then charges more for all of their services to those who can pay (ie. those who have insurance) in order to cover those lost dollars, thus raising our rates because now our insurance companies have to pay out more to the hospital.

And why are these people unable to pay for health care?

 

[RDD_1210]

So they will get a basic level of treatment to stabalize them. So if they can't pay even that, by what mechanism will the hospital be reimbursed for the service it provided?

The hospital then charges more for all of their services to those who can pay (ie. those who have insurance) in order to cover those lost dollars, thus raising our rates because now our insurance companies have to pay out more to the hospital.

And why are these people unable to pay for health care?

Some can afford it, but choose not to.
Most just can't afford it

 

[Bern80]

The hospital then charges more for all of their services to those who can pay (ie. those who have insurance) in order to cover those lost dollars, thus raising our rates because now our insurance companies have to pay out more to the hospital.

And why are these people unable to pay for health care?

Some can afford it, but choose not to.
Most just can't afford it

I asked WHY? Why is an important question because it addresses whether I have a moral obligation to them or not. Again look at the message your sending. You're essentially telling people, that vbecause you aren't willing to find a better option, you're okay with saddling the responsible with the costs of the irresponsible.

 

[RDD_1210]

And why are these people unable to pay for health care?

Some can afford it, but choose not to.
Most just can't afford it

I asked WHY? Why is an important question because it addresses whether I have a moral obligation to them or not. Again look at the message your sending. You're essentially telling people, that vbecause you aren't willing to find a better option, you're okay with saddling the responsible with the costs of the irresponsible.

Why? Because they are unemployed or their employer doesn't offer insurance and buying it on the open market is way too cost prohibitive. When it comes down to making a decision between paying for food, rent or health insurance, which one do you think will be dropped first?

 

[WillowTree]

Some can afford it, but choose not to.
Most just can't afford it

I asked WHY? Why is an important question because it addresses whether I have a moral obligation to them or not. Again look at the message your sending. You're essentially telling people, that vbecause you aren't willing to find a better option, you're okay with saddling the responsible with the costs of the irresponsible.

Why? Because they are unemployed or their employer doesn't offer insurance and buying it on the open market is way too cost prohibitive. When it comes down to making a decision between paying for food, rent or health insurance, which one do you think will be dropped first?

you la teee da people make me puke, they don't just choose beteween the smorgasbord you listed,, add,cigarettes wine, alcohol, whores, fancy clothes, furniture, the biggest damn tv they can find and drugs,, yes,, I said drugs, recreational drugs. there's a whole lot of stuff irresponsible people want to spend their money on.

 

[RDD_1210]

I asked WHY? Why is an important question because it addresses whether I have a moral obligation to them or not. Again look at the message your sending. You're essentially telling people, that vbecause you aren't willing to find a better option, you're okay with saddling the responsible with the costs of the irresponsible.

Why? Because they are unemployed or their employer doesn't offer insurance and buying it on the open market is way too cost prohibitive. When it comes down to making a decision between paying for food, rent or health insurance, which one do you think will be dropped first?

you la teee da people make me puke, they don't just choose beteween the smorgasbord you listed,, add,cigarettes wine, alcohol, whores, fancy clothes, furniture, the biggest damn tv they can find and drugs,, yes,, I said drugs, recreational drugs. there's a whole lot of stuff irresponsible people want to spend their money on.

So a majority of the uninsured are prostitute banging drug addicts?

 

[WillowTree]

Why? Because they are unemployed or their employer doesn't offer insurance and buying it on the open market is way too cost prohibitive. When it comes down to making a decision between paying for food, rent or health insurance, which one do you think will be dropped first?

you la teee da people make me puke, they don't just choose beteween the smorgasbord you listed,, add,cigarettes wine, alcohol, whores, fancy clothes, furniture, the biggest damn tv they can find and drugs,, yes,, I said drugs, recreational drugs. there's a whole lot of stuff irresponsible people want to spend their money on.

So a majority of the uninsured are prostitute banging drug addicts?

who knows? they're not all la tee da like you try to spin either moron.

 

[RDD_1210]

you la teee da people make me puke, they don't just choose beteween the smorgasbord you listed,, add,cigarettes wine, alcohol, whores, fancy clothes, furniture, the biggest damn tv they can find and drugs,, yes,, I said drugs, recreational drugs. there's a whole lot of stuff irresponsible people want to spend their money on.

So a majority of the uninsured are prostitute banging drug addicts?

who knows? they're not all la tee da like you try to spin either moron.

Ahh, so you don't know. Just talking out your ass again. Got it.