Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[JakeStarkey]

Can Obamacare be Fixed?

Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.

However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.

 

[Bern80]

Can Obamacare be Fixed?

Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.

However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.

Something that has to be 'fixed' implies it is broken. If you don't think an insurance based solution that saves money for the old and sick at the expense of the young and healthy is broken, I'd be interested to know how bad it has to get for you to admit it is indeed broken.

 

[itfitzme]

Can Obamacare be Fixed?

Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.

However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.

Something that has to be 'fixed' implies it is broken. If you don't think an insurance based solution that saves money for the old and sick at the expense of the young and healthy is broken, I'd be interested to know how bad it has to get for you to admit it is indeed broken.

The concept of insurance is difficult for you.

 

[Bern80]

Can Obamacare be Fixed?

Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.

However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.

Something that has to be 'fixed' implies it is broken. If you don't think an insurance based solution that saves money for the old and sick at the expense of the young and healthy is broken, I'd be interested to know how bad it has to get for you to admit it is indeed broken.

The concept of insurance is difficult for you.

Not at all. The concept of insurance, I'm well aware, is to spread risk around. But the rules behind that Obama has put in place would never fly in the private sector. The higher risk you are to the insurer the more money they need from you to protect themselves from your increased risk. People of lower risk get charged less. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to safer drivers paying less than unsafe drivers or higher home owner's insurance rates for people that live in flood prone areas. I don't really see why people think it's unfair to charge sick person more for the same policy than a healthy one. If you're going to insure someone you have the right to protect yourself accordingly to the financial risk they pose upon you.

Obamacare comes along and says you can't do that. You can't charge for insurance on the basis of risk. Insurance companies now have a major expense they did not have before. Sick people. The ability to offset this expense is dependent on the young and healthy purchasing insurance. Except there are built in disincentives into the plan for doing so. You increased how much they would normally pay for premiums, not by small increment that happen yearly, but doubling their rates. You've essentially told them not only am I gonna make you purchase insurance, but I'm gonna make you pay twice as much for it, including a bunch of coverages you probably don't want or need. That's the undeniable reality of what we're seeing, so I think I understand insurance just fine.

Again, anyone with a brain understands why the premiums for the young and healthy are going up. Your buddies in the democrat party are hardly fighting this point anymore. Maybe that should be a clue to you to stop pretending it's not happening.

 

[itfitzme]

Something that has to be 'fixed' implies it is broken. If you don't think an insurance based solution that saves money for the old and sick at the expense of the young and healthy is broken, I'd be interested to know how bad it has to get for you to admit it is indeed broken.

The concept of insurance is difficult for you.

Not at all. The concept of insurance, I'm well aware, is to spread risk around. But the rules behind that Obama has put in place would never fly in the private sector. The higher risk you are to the insurer the more money they need from you to protect themselves from your increased risk. People of lower risk get charged less. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to safer drivers paying less than unsafe drivers or higher home owner's insurance rates for people that live in flood prone areas. I don't really see why people think it's unfair to charge sick person more for the same policy than a healthy one. If you're going to insure someone you have the right to protect yourself accordingly to the financial risk they pose upon you.

Obamacare comes along and says you can't do that. You can't charge for insurance on the basis of risk. Insurance companies now have a major expense they did not have before. Sick people. The ability to offset this expense is dependent on the young and healthy purchasing insurance. Except there are built in disincentives into the plan for doing so. You increased how much they would normally pay for premiums, not by small increment that happen yearly, but doubling their rates. You've essentially told them not only am I gonna make you purchase insurance, but I'm gonna make you pay twice as much for it, including a bunch of coverages you probably don't want or need. That's the undeniable reality of what we're seeing, so I think I understand insurance just fine.

Again, anyone with a brain understands why the premiums for the young and healthy are going up. Your buddies in the democrat party are hardly fighting this point anymore. Maybe that should be a clue to you to stop pretending it's not happening.

Except you have absolutely no data to support what you are supposing. And, insurance may be based on risk over the live time of the insurance, not on your particular risk for one particular month of one particular year in one particular county.

The is nothing incorrect or inappropriate about the insurance premium being based on life time usage.

Here is Kiaser's presentation of insurance premiums back to 1999

Note that they have been growing since 1999. That is before PPACA. PPACA didn't start in 1999. See, cause comes before effect. Not after. If there is an effect before something, then the something didn't cause it.

Here it is on the Kiaser web site.

It's not a "republican"/"democratic" thing. It is called reality. It is a reality thing.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the PPACA bill.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Where does it say insurance companies cannot price based on risk?

I find this;

"IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market—
‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by—
‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary
by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved by any other factor not
described in subparagraph (A).


So age and tobacco use are valid rate variation.

And

RATING AREA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall establish 1 or more
rating areas within that State for purposes of applying
the requirements of this title.

So it is State managed.

 

[Bern80]

The concept of insurance is difficult for you.

Not at all. The concept of insurance, I'm well aware, is to spread risk around. But the rules behind that Obama has put in place would never fly in the private sector. The higher risk you are to the insurer the more money they need from you to protect themselves from your increased risk. People of lower risk get charged less. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to safer drivers paying less than unsafe drivers or higher home owner's insurance rates for people that live in flood prone areas. I don't really see why people think it's unfair to charge sick person more for the same policy than a healthy one. If you're going to insure someone you have the right to protect yourself accordingly to the financial risk they pose upon you.

Obamacare comes along and says you can't do that. You can't charge for insurance on the basis of risk. Insurance companies now have a major expense they did not have before. Sick people. The ability to offset this expense is dependent on the young and healthy purchasing insurance. Except there are built in disincentives into the plan for doing so. You increased how much they would normally pay for premiums, not by small increment that happen yearly, but doubling their rates. You've essentially told them not only am I gonna make you purchase insurance, but I'm gonna make you pay twice as much for it, including a bunch of coverages you probably don't want or need. That's the undeniable reality of what we're seeing, so I think I understand insurance just fine.

Again, anyone with a brain understands why the premiums for the young and healthy are going up. Your buddies in the democrat party are hardly fighting this point anymore. Maybe that should be a clue to you to stop pretending it's not happening.

Except you have absolutely no data to support what you are supposing. And, insurance may be based on risk over the live time of the insurance, not on your particular risk for one particular month of one particular year in one particular county.

The is nothing incorrect or inappropriate about the insurance premium being based on life time usage.

Here is Kiaser's presentation of insurance premiums back to 1999

Note that they have been growing since 1999. That is before PPACA. PPACA didn't start in 1999. See, cause comes before effect. Not after. If there is an effect before something, then the something didn't cause it.

Here it is on the Kiaser web site.

It's not a "republican"/"democratic" thing. It is called reality. It is a reality thing.

So the premium rates for the young and healthy are in fact not and will not be going up? That's what you wanna stick with?

 

[Bern80]

The concept of insurance is difficult for you.

Not at all. The concept of insurance, I'm well aware, is to spread risk around. But the rules behind that Obama has put in place would never fly in the private sector. The higher risk you are to the insurer the more money they need from you to protect themselves from your increased risk. People of lower risk get charged less. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to safer drivers paying less than unsafe drivers or higher home owner's insurance rates for people that live in flood prone areas. I don't really see why people think it's unfair to charge sick person more for the same policy than a healthy one. If you're going to insure someone you have the right to protect yourself accordingly to the financial risk they pose upon you.

Obamacare comes along and says you can't do that. You can't charge for insurance on the basis of risk. Insurance companies now have a major expense they did not have before. Sick people. The ability to offset this expense is dependent on the young and healthy purchasing insurance. Except there are built in disincentives into the plan for doing so. You increased how much they would normally pay for premiums, not by small increment that happen yearly, but doubling their rates. You've essentially told them not only am I gonna make you purchase insurance, but I'm gonna make you pay twice as much for it, including a bunch of coverages you probably don't want or need. That's the undeniable reality of what we're seeing, so I think I understand insurance just fine.

Again, anyone with a brain understands why the premiums for the young and healthy are going up. Your buddies in the democrat party are hardly fighting this point anymore. Maybe that should be a clue to you to stop pretending it's not happening.

Except you have absolutely no data to support what you are supposing. And, insurance may be based on risk over the live time of the insurance, not on your particular risk for one particular month of one particular year in one particular county.

The is nothing incorrect or inappropriate about the insurance premium being based on life time usage.

Here is Kiaser's presentation of insurance premiums back to 1999

Note that they have been growing since 1999. That is before PPACA. PPACA didn't start in 1999. See, cause comes before effect. Not after. If there is an effect before something, then the something didn't cause it.

Here it is on the Kiaser web site.

It's not a "republican"/"democratic" thing. It is called reality. It is a reality thing.

The community rating mandate and pre-existing condition mandate portion of the bill say that.

(F) the issuer shall offer the plan in participating
States across the country, in all geographic regions, and
in all States that have adopted adjusted community rating
before the date of enactment of this Act; and
(G) the issuer clearly notifies consumers that

 

[Doubletap]

Repeal this immoral law.
By what right do these despots have to impose their vision of healthcare on me or anyone else?

 

[percysunshine]

Repeal this immoral law.
By what right do these despots have to impose their vision of healthcare on me or anyone else?

Since when has fascism ever been concerned with individual rights?

 

[PMZ]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

 

[Bern80]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Actually it was Obama that assured we have to throw them our money. And it reduces competetion by narrowing people's chocies thanks to Obamacare mandates about what all health care plans must offer. I'm not too worried about them making a profit. They will. The premiums of the young and healthy are simply going to go up to accomplish that.

 

[dblack]

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.

This is exactly what ACA does.

 

[dblack]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Regarding the phoniness of Republican opposition to ACA, I have to agree. Most of it is purely partisan, and it's my opinion that if Romney had won nothing substantial would have been changed in the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

Damn those solar and wind power scammers! And their enablers in government.

Glad you finally agree.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

Damn those solar and wind power scammers! And their enablers in government.

Glad you finally agree.

I've seen their offices. They are vacuuming up all that they need to support even their high living lobbyists.

 

[PMZ]

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.

This is exactly what ACA does.

Unfortunately, the cure for poor health is money. Of course, not curing poor health, costs even more money.

Business arbitrarily chooses to send the bills that workers not being paid enough to live on, accumulate, to us, the taxpayers. Among them is the cost of keeping them healthy enough to work.

Before ACA, those same bills came at us, instead of through taxes, through higher health care premiums paid to emergency rooms. The most expensive least effective treatment for poor health.

Of course health care insurance companies have their eyes set on keeping those premiums to be excess when emergency room treatment of common illness go down.

The ACA standards for coverage are one tool to pry them out of insurance profits in get them where they rightfully belong, in the taxpayers pockets.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Actually it was Obama that assured we have to throw them our money. And it reduces competetion by narrowing people's chocies thanks to Obamacare mandates about what all health care plans must offer. I'm not too worried about them making a profit. They will. The premiums of the young and healthy are simply going to go up to accomplish that.

Explain how ACA manages to "narrow people's chocies".

 

[dblack]

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.

Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll.

What a bunch of puppets.

Actually it was Obama that assured we have to throw them our money. And it reduces competetion by narrowing people's chocies thanks to Obamacare mandates about what all health care plans must offer. I'm not too worried about them making a profit. They will. The premiums of the young and healthy are simply going to go up to accomplish that.

Explain how ACA manages to "narrow people's chocies".

By constraining the types of policies we can choose. And, of course, by taking away our right to choose entirely different avenues for financing our health care.

 

[PMZ]

Actually it was Obama that assured we have to throw them our money. And it reduces competetion by narrowing people's chocies thanks to Obamacare mandates about what all health care plans must offer. I'm not too worried about them making a profit. They will. The premiums of the young and healthy are simply going to go up to accomplish that.

Explain how ACA manages to "narrow people's chocies".

By constraining the types of policies we can choose. And, of course, by taking away our right to choose entirely different avenues for financing our health care.

Just like most regulations it narrows our choices to what's adequate.

Adequate to make sure that we aren't dumping our personal risks on others.