Conservatives don't know what insurance is or what insurance companies do.

[The Derp]

No the American public was spoiled long before obamacare with low copays and deductible's.

Not sure what you're talking about, but prior to Obamacare, we were certainly not spoiled with low copays and deductibles. In fact, insurers would jack up those rates all the time. Curious, prior to the ACA, what would you do if your insurer raised rates or stopped offering your insurance plan? Would you ***** and moan about it, or would you act like an adult and get a new plan? Same principle applies post-ACA; if your current plan is too costly, you can very simply go on the exchanges to find a different plan. Why not do that? Do you not know how to use a computer?

 

[The Derp]

I'm certainly not ignoring you. You're a marginally interesting case study.

No one buys your posturing. So give it a rest.

 

[The Derp]

What happens if you meet a lion and have no spear?

Since lions are not native to America, this is just an attempt to deflect away from the core belief you have; that if you cannot afford health insurance, you should just die and decrease the surplus population. That's what you believe, isn't it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What happens if you meet a lion and have no spear?

Since lions are not native to America, this is just an attempt to deflect away from the core belief you have; that if you cannot afford health insurance, you should just die and decrease the surplus population. That's what you believe, isn't it?

Just how stupid are you, anyway? It merely repaints the principle you proffered.

One must take responsibility and prepare for one's life, and not expect a government to rob from others to set right your negligence of it.

Charity is an affair of the heart, not of governmental edicts.

 

[debbiedowner]

No the American public was spoiled long before obamacare with low copays and deductible's.

Not sure what you're talking about, but prior to Obamacare, we were certainly not spoiled with low copays and deductibles. In fact, insurers would jack up those rates all the time. Curious, prior to the ACA, what would you do if your insurer raised rates or stopped offering your insurance plan? Would you ***** and moan about it, or would you act like an adult and get a new plan? Same principle applies post-ACA; if your current plan is too costly, you can very simply go on the exchanges to find a different plan. Why not do that? Do you not know how to use a computer?

I know very well what I'm talking about seen it over my 25 year career. First think a person wants to know, what is my deductble and copays even now, but before obamacare if your tried to show a plan with a higher deductible and higher co pays they'd have a fit, just trying to save them premium's.

The only way your plan is any cheaper on the exchange is if one qualifies for a decent advanced premium tax credit. If not it costs the same on or off exchange very same plan.

 

[The Derp]

Just how stupid are you, anyway? It merely repaints the principle you proffered.

No, what you've exercised is "specious reasoning". Not everyone is going to run into a lion at Kroger. But everyone will need health care at some point in their lives.

One must take responsibility and prepare for one's life, and not expect a government to rob from others to set right your negligence of it.

So funny how you write this, yet you support the GOP's AHCA which they had 7 years to come up with, but rather appeared to be cobbled together sloppily because they don't understand what health insurance is, nor do they want to. Personal responsibility, in what regard? You could be the pinnacle fo health, run 5 miles every day, eat healthy and still get cancer because of your family history and genetics. So all you are doing is arguing on behalf of a system that punishes the sick and rewards the wealthy for doing nothing.

Charity is an affair of the heart, not of governmental edicts.

The totality of all charitable giving in the US (and that includes things like the NYC Ballet and other non-health care related charitable donations) amounts to less than Medicaid's entire budget. So replacing it with the hope that charity will pick up the slack is more of that magical thinking we come to know and hate from the GOP and Russian Conservatives.

 

[The Derp]

I know very well what I'm talking about seen it over my 25 year career. First think a person wants to know, what is my deductble and copays even now, but before obamacare if your tried to show a plan with a higher deductible and higher co pays they'd have a fit, just trying to save them premium's.

Again, that kind of thing happened regularly pre-ACA too. So it's not like hiked co-pays or deductibles is new to Obamacare. But don't Conservatives support higher out-of-pocket fees for health care? Isn't that what you mean by people putting "more skin in the game?" So why are you opposed to something as a (maybe) consequence of the ACA, yet you argue on behalf of that very thing you complain about? "personal responsibility", "more skin in the game"...these are just teabaggish ways of saying you think people should bear more responsibility for their health care. So you are running around in a masturbatory circle, complaining about the very thing you support. So square that circle for me. What does "more skin in the game" and/or "more personal responsibility" mean if not higher out-of-pocket fees for patients?????

The only way your plan is any cheaper on the exchange is if one qualifies for a decent advanced premium tax credit. If not it costs the same on or off exchange very same plan.

Well, Obamacare offers subsidies, not tax credits. That's an important distinction to make, because tax credits (as are in the AHCA) happen after you pay the insurance, whereas subsidies are before you pay for the insurance. So by shifting subsidies to tax credits, all you're doing is forcing patients to pay more up front for diminishing returns. Why? Because the AHCA's tax credits aren't pegged to health care inflation, which rises at historically higher rates than general inflation.

The AHCA is nothing more than a massive tax cut for the rich, at the expense of at least 24,000,000 people's health care coverage.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Just how stupid are you, anyway? It merely repaints the principle you proffered.

No, what you've exercised is "specious reasoning". Not everyone is going to run into a lion at Kroger.

Lion for cancer. Spear for health insurance. The density of your skull is astonishing.

But everyone will need health care at some point in their lives.

And this makes it a constitutionally-mandated power granted to government how?

One must take responsibility and prepare for one's life, and not expect a government to rob from others to set right your negligence of it.

So funny how you write this, yet you support the GOP's AHCA

Please post where I have ever said such a thing. I am no Republican, and I have not stated support for any specific plan.

they don't understand what health insurance is, nor do they want to.

Neither do you, obviously.

Personal responsibility, in what regard?

Nor do you understand personal responsibility, apparently.

You could be the pinnacle fo health, run 5 miles every day, eat healthy and stillget cancer because of your family history and genetics.

That's the nature of the beast.

So all you are doing is arguing on behalf of a system that punishes the sick and rewards the wealthy for doing nothing.

No, what I argue is the government has no constitutionally-mandated authority to reach into the pocket of one for the benefit of another.

Charity is an affair of the heart, not of governmental edicts.

The totality of all charitable giving in the US (and that includes things like the NYC Ballet and other non-health care related charitable donations) amounts to less than Medicaid's entire budget.

Irrelevant.

 

[The Derp]

Lion for cancer. Spear for health insurance. The density of your skull is astonishing.

So you were trying to make an analogy? Try harder. Why not speak in plain terms of health care? Oh right, because speaking plain terms of health care makes your argument look like shit. I get it. I know why you play dumb.

And this makes it a constitutionally-mandated power granted to government how?

General Welfare. If you want to argue Medicare is unconstitutional, be my guest. It's not an argument you are going to win on Constitutional, legal, economic, or moral grounds. Besides, you clowns tried challenging Medicare in the courts when it was first passed in the 60's. The courts smacked you down then, so why would they be any different today?

And what "power" are you referring to? All anyone is talking about here is the mechanism by which your provider is reimbursed for your care. Not your actual health care. You understand that difference, right? You know health care and health insurance are two different things, right? One is a service (health care), the other is how that service is paid (health insurance). There is no argument to be made that private, for-profit insurance does anything to improve or enhance your care. All it does is restrict it. We pay as much as 20% service fee for an insurer to move money from the premium pool you paid into, to the provider who performed health care. Would you pay a 20% service fee for paying your cell phone bill? No. So why do you have no problem paying a 20% fee for an insurer to make sure your provider is paid? Is that service really worth 20%? What's the benefit to having a for-profit insurer do that vs. Medicare? These are the difficult questions you cannot answer (nor do I expect you to answer), and why everything you do -from health care on down to every other subject- ends up being a stinking failure of epic proportions. Name the GOP program and in every case, there will be more liability than benefit. Every. Case. There is not one single piece of Conservative ideology or legislation that caused positive effects you can point to with any pride. I mean, really, at this point why even open your fat mouth if not to put a gun in it and pull the trigger?

Please post where I have ever said such a thing. I am no Republican, and I have not stated support for any specific plan.

Ah, so basically you're just a contrarian with an unhealthy need for attention, and for people to engage you in debate because no one wants anything to do with you offline. Sounds about right. A Conservative talking out of their ass about things for which they have no ideas is par for the course these days. Why even open your fat mouth? What's the point of you posting? Are you just here trying to get a rise out of people? All that means is that you are so insecure and desperate that you resort to flaming because that's the only way anyone will pay attention to you. Pathetic. My 5 year old niece does the exact same thing.

Neither do you, obviously.

Really? You're the one who just said one sentence ago you had no ideas for any specific plan, nor do you support any specific plan. Someone with at least cursory knowledge of health care would be able to form an opinion. You're telling me you can't even do that, cuck.

Nor do you understand personal responsibility, apparently.

So this is the point in the conversation where the Conservative has absolutely nothing to contribute, so they seek to tear others down to their pond scum level because they are so woefully ignorant, the only way they can feel better about yourself is to pretend others are as clueless and ignorant as you. That's not the case. You're your own stupid asshole. Being a stupid asshole does not automatically make everyone else a stupid asshole too. That's assholish in itself. Go **** yourself if you have nothing to contribute, snowflake. You want to talk about personal responsibility? Fine. How can you pretend to be responsible for anything when you come onto the message boards and confess you are only here to flame people. Seriously, that's not personal responsibility. That's fuckery. Grow up or kill yourself...don't care which you choose.

No, what I argue is the government has no constitutionally-mandated authority to reach into the pocket of one for the benefit of another.

Well that argument is stupid and wrong. Which is why stupid and wrong people echo it, like Trump. Fact is you have no idea what the Constitution says or means, and it seems to me you're nothing more than one of those Russian trolls that Putin pays in rubles and hooker pee to spam message boards to undermine faith in western institutions. You'd probably be much happier in Russia. That is, if you could even survive it. I don't think you have it in you, frankly. I think you're a spoiled, coddled little brat. Grow up.

Irrelevant.

It only seems it's irrelevant because it completely undermines the argument you were about to make; that charity can make up for the gap from cuts to government programs. It's just as stupid as any of the other things you believe. You're not special in that regard. You're just a dupe.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

no one wants anything to do with you offline.

 

[The Derp]

If you were looking to prove otherwise, you did a shit job. But your standards are so low that a shit job is good to you. Diminished expectations strike again!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If you were looking to prove otherwise, you did a shit job. But your standards are so low that a shit job is good to you. Diminished expectations strike again!

Nothing to prove. I don't compete with women, the uneducated or the insane.

 

[debbiedowner]

I know very well what I'm talking about seen it over my 25 year career. First think a person wants to know, what is my deductble and copays even now, but before obamacare if your tried to show a plan with a higher deductible and higher co pays they'd have a fit, just trying to save them premium's.

Again, that kind of thing happened regularly pre-ACA too. So it's not like hiked co-pays or deductibles is new to Obamacare. But don't Conservatives support higher out-of-pocket fees for health care? Isn't that what you mean by people putting "more skin in the game?" So why are you opposed to something as a (maybe) consequence of the ACA, yet you argue on behalf of that very thing you complain about? "personal responsibility", "more skin in the game"...these are just teabaggish ways of saying you think people should bear more responsibility for their health care. So you are running around in a masturbatory circle, complaining about the very thing you support. So square that circle for me. What does "more skin in the game" and/or "more personal responsibility" mean if not higher out-of-pocket fees for patients?????

The only way your plan is any cheaper on the exchange is if one qualifies for a decent advanced premium tax credit. If not it costs the same on or off exchange very same plan.

Well, Obamacare offers subsidies, not tax credits. That's an important distinction to make, because tax credits (as are in the AHCA) happen after you pay the insurance, whereas subsidies are before you pay for the insurance. So by shifting subsidies to tax credits, all you're doing is forcing patients to pay more up front for diminishing returns. Why? Because the AHCA's tax credits aren't pegged to health care inflation, which rises at historically higher rates than general inflation.

The AHCA is nothing more than a massive tax cut for the rich, at the expense of at least 24,000,000 people's health care coverage.

I think you better look up the term of what the subsidies really are, ADVANCED PREMIUM TAX CREDITS. After you look that up and have DERP then you can say you were wrong. I have never advocated for the AHCA and realize how much the rich will gain. If you have read everything I have said on the subject you will see that if someone wants low premium's the only way that can happen is take more responsibility and pay higher deds and co pays or no co pays. That is the only way it's ever going to happen.

You must pay attention here DERP I am attempting (but won't work) to teach you a little about ACA.

 

[The Derp]

I think you better look up the term of what the subsidies really are, ADVANCED PREMIUM TAX CREDITS.

Potato, potahto. The difference between Obamacare's subsidies and the AHCA's tax credits is that Obamacare's subsidies are applied to the insurance ahead of the patient paying for it, whereas in the AHCA, the patient must first shell out the full, non-subsidized premium out of pocket before the credits are issued. So what that means is that patients under the AHCA will have to pay the full premium and then wait until the credits are applied the following year in the taxes. So shifting when the patient pays plays a big part in affordability. Also, the tax credits are not pegged to health care inflation, which means they diminish over time, forcing patients to pay more.

I have never advocated for the AHCA and realize how much the rich will gain. If you have read everything I have said on the subject you will see that if someone wants low premium's the only way that can happen is take more responsibility and pay higher deds and co pays or no co pays. That is the only way it's ever going to happen. You must pay attention here DERP I am attempting (but won't work) to teach you a little about ACA.

OK, but this "personal responsibility" you are alluding to...how are you supposed to take personal responsibility for a genetic disease? You could be the pinnacle of health, run 5 miles a day, eat nothing but healthy foods and still get cancer because of your family's genetic history. What I'd like to know is why you think people who have no control over genetics should have to pay more than those who don't have family genetic histories of things like cancer, heart disease, and many mental health issues?

The best and easiest way to lower premiums is to abolish private for-profit insurance and move everyone to Medicare. A single payer can negotiate for cheaper drugs and fees, whereas insurers today do not have that leverage. When there are more payors than providers, the bargaining power lies with providers who can then play insurers off one another to get higher fees. Whereas if the opposite was the case, in that there are more providers and one single payer, the bargaining power lies with the single payer who can use its leverage. Why do you think Conservatives prohibited Medicare from negotiating for cheaper drug prices as part of Medicare Part-D's initial legislation from 2003? To preserve high profits for drug companies. Why the hell should we be OK with that? You want lower premiums, lower drug costs, etc. you have to have fewer payers who can use their leverage to bargain for cheaper fees and prices. That's just economics.

 

[Doc1]

I'd say it's you who does not know what insurance is. Insurance is an assumption of risk by one party on behalf of another. Forcing coverage for damages that have in fact already occurred is not assumption of risk, but forced charitable contribution for a past occurrence. Call such a program what you will, but it is not insurance.

So of course, that's not what health insurance is at all. You say it's an assumption of risk...who's risk? Not the patient, not the provider, just the insurer's risk to their profit margins. That's what you guys always leave out. The only reason insurance premiums go up is because insurers have a profit motive. Nothing they do has any positive influence on the care you receive. So when you say "assumption of risk", that's just a teabaggery way of saying "protecting the profits of insurers at the expense of your health" because that is the risk we are talking about. The risk to insurance company profits.

So try again, moron. Everything you say belies the fatal flaw that you have no ******* clue of that which you speak.

So what lines are you licensed in?

 

[The Derp]

So what lines are you licensed in?

This isn't about me. This is about facts.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So what lines are you licensed in?

This isn't about me. This is about facts.

Perhaps you will provide some soon. Perhaps not.

 

[debbiedowner]

So what lines are you licensed in?

This isn't about me. This is about facts.

Just the facts Maam. Joe Friday

 

[Doc1]

So what lines are you licensed in?

This isn't about me. This is about facts.

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

 

[The Derp]

No, it's about you because you don't the facts. I'm licensed in Property Casualty and Life and Health. Insurance no matter what form is about risk and it's transference. The fact that you deny that shows that you know nothing about Insurance.

OK, but lumping together all forms of insurance into one thing is dishonest, and even you know that. The different kinds of insurance (auto, home, life, health, pet, etc.) are all regulated differently. We are talking specifically health insurance. And the "risk" involved. So what is the actual "risk" that insurance companies charge as much as a 20% fee for? The "risk" to their profits. It's just a teabaggery way of saying "protect insurer profits". A single-payer has no such motive, therefore there is little "risk" to be mitigated.

"risk and its transference" - LOL! What a crock of shit.

Here's what an insurance company actually does:

• Administration

That's it. That's all they do. They administrate payments from the premium pool you and thousands, millions of others pay into. For this administration, they take as much as 20% of every dollar you pay for themselves. That's 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums that doesn't pay for your health care at all. It goes right into the pocket of the insurer. And it's not like insurance companies do anything to improve or enhance your care. Far from it...they restrict and prohibit care. Medicare serves the exact same function as insurance companies (many of whom, I'm sure you know, use Medicare as a template anyway), but does it for a fraction of the overhead (20% vs. 3%). So why are we paying an insurance company a 20% service fee to do the same thing Medicare does for 3% overhead? It's a rip-off and I'm sure even you know it.

On top of that, multiple insurers means the bargaining power lies with the providers and drug companies, who can use their leverage to play insurers off one another, cheating you out of care you may need. In a single-payer system, the bargaining power and leverage lies with the single payer, who can then use its leverage to bargain for cheaper prices. When payors outnumber providers, providers have the leverage. When providers outnumber payers, the payers have the leverage. Why do you not want patients to have the leverage to bargain for cheaper health care costs?