'My health insurance is going up to $800 a month with a $15k deductible and that's the CHEAPEST PLAN"

[forkup]

Paying taxes is not forcing purchase of a product. Your other examples are optional - you don’t HAVE to buy a house.

And Obamacare drove up costs to the point that even people earning $100,000 can’t afford health insurance now (unless other people buy it for them).

It’s been a disaster. The truth is we were better off before the Marxist tried to send us down the path to socialized medicine.

Of course taxation is forcing purchase of a product. Be it defense, roads, or a fire protection.

Taxes are forcing payment for services whether you personally use them or not. You may never call the police, never send a kid to public school, never drive on certain roads, but you still pay. That’s collective funding for societal risk and need. Health care fits that category far better than most things we already tax for.

And the “optional” argument collapses under the slightest pressure. You don’t have to buy a house, but if you want to exist in modern society, you need shelter. You don’t have to buy car insurance, but if you want to work, commute, or participate in the economy, good luck avoiding it. Saying “it’s optional” ignores how the real world actually functions.

As for costs: premiums didn’t explode because of “ACA.” They rose because Republicans gutted the individual mandate, destabilized the risk pool, and then spent a decade sabotaging the law while blaming it for the damage they caused. That’s documented reality, not ideology.

You were “better off before” if you were healthy, insured, and lucky. If you were uninsured, underinsured, or got sick at the wrong time, you were one diagnosis away from financial ruin. That wasn’t freedom, it was roulette.

Pretending that ACA somehow created a bad situation completely ignores the reality of pre-ACA America. One we're millions upon millions didn't have insurance at all.

Were insurance companies simply refused to insure people because off pre-existing conditions.

That's the reason the GOP, while having the majority in all branches of government for five years simply can't repeal it. Because they know that they're own constituency would be just as screwed, probably more so if they did.

 

[JoeB131]

Obamascare was a stepping stone to single payer. They knew HC costs would do exactly what it's doing now and people would be begging for an alternative. If Dems were in control, they'd be selling a fully subsidized government 'fix'..... government provided government controlled.

Except HC costs were going up before ObamaCare.

What I remember is that before ObamaCare, the Human Resources Cow would have that annual meeting about how this year insurance would cost more and cover less. One time, this ***** even bragged about how glad she was to be on her husband's plan and not our shitty plan. (Never did it occur to her that maybe getting us onto a non-shitty plan was her job.)

After ObamaCare, for a while, this stopped happening.

Now health care costs have flooded past the dyke, and we should do what we should have done.

They teach that strategy in business school too: if the program you want fails to win approval, intentionally design an alternative that will fail.

Obama’s plan was that Obamacare would start to collapse when Hillary was president, from 2016 to 2024, and she would herald in Universal Health Poor Care.

Oops. Trump won. And with it, Obama’s devious plan to continue marching America toward socialism was halted.

Your hero trump cut off people's health insurance in the middle of a pandemic. Swell guy.

Again, all this could have been avoided with a public option and a Medicare Buy in, but Joe Lieberman put the kaybosh on that as a big **** you to his own party for rejecting him.

 

[Lisa558]

Of course taxation is forcing purchase of a product. Be it defense, roads, or a fire protection.

Taxes are forcing payment for services whether you personally use them or not. You may never call the police, never send a kid to public school, never drive on certain roads, but you still pay. That’s collective funding for societal risk and need. Health care fits that category far better than most things we already tax for.

And the “optional” argument collapses under the slightest pressure. You don’t have to buy a house, but if you want to exist in modern society, you need shelter. You don’t have to buy car insurance, but if you want to work, commute, or participate in the economy, good luck avoiding it. Saying “it’s optional” ignores how the real world actually functions.

As for costs: premiums didn’t explode because of “ACA.” They rose because Republicans gutted the individual mandate, destabilized the risk pool, and then spent a decade sabotaging the law while blaming it for the damage they caused. That’s documented reality, not ideology.

You were “better off before” if you were healthy, insured, and lucky. If you were uninsured, underinsured, or got sick at the wrong time, you were one diagnosis away from financial ruin. That wasn’t freedom, it was roulette.

Pretending that ACA somehow created a bad situation completely ignores the reality of pre-ACA America. One we're millions upon millions didn't have insurance at all.

Were insurance companies simply refused to insure people because off pre-existing conditions.

That's the reason the GOP, while having the majority in all branches of government for five years simply can't repeal it. Because they know that they're own constituency would be just as screwed, probably more so if they did.

Sorry, you’re too biased to face a very obvious fact: when government subsidizes something - be it insurance plans or tuition - prices go up. And because the amount of subsidies involved in Obamacare are so high, the prices absolutely skyrocketed.

We need to stop taking money from responsible, tax-paying Americans and handing it over to insurance companies. We need LESS insurance, forcing health suppliers to compete on price because real people are paying for it, and that will make prices come down.

How, for example, could a hospital get away with charging $40 for a blanket rental fee for the 25 minutes you’re in the ER? Because you never question the price, because you don’t have to pay it. Insurance pays for it.

The solution is to cover LESS. Watch the prices for routine doctor’s visits plummet.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, you’re too biased to face a very obvious fact: when government subsidizes something - be it insurance plans or tuition - prices go up. And because the amount of subsidies involved in Obamacare are so high, the prices absolutely skyrocketed.

We need to stop taking money from responsible, tax-paying Americans and handing it over to insurance companies. We need LESS insurance, forcing health suppliers to compete on price because real people are paying for it, and that will make prices come down.

How, for example, could a hospital get away with charging $40 for a blanket rental fee for the 25 minutes you’re in the ER? Because you never question the price, because you don’t have to pay it. Insurance pays for it.

The solution is to cover LESS. Watch the prices for routine doctor’s visits plummet.

It's so cute when you guys pretend you all hate insurance companies now.

I remember last year when that Thompson guy took a dirt nap, you all treated it like it was a national tragedy.

 

[forkup]

Sorry, you’re too biased to face a very obvious fact: when government subsidizes something - be it insurance plans or tuition - prices go up. And because the amount of subsidies involved in Obamacare are so high, the prices absolutely skyrocketed.

Why is it that my position is because of bias and yours is simply true?

By the way, it isn't.

Government funded healthcare is the norm across all developed nations. ALL are cheaper, by a significant margin. And before you try it, I'm Belgian my wife's American, and before you try to do your talking points about healthcare systems you know nothing about. I do, firsthand and in both your and my system. So look at what I said about it in this thread.

How, for example, could a hospital get away with charging $40 for a blanket rental fee for the 25 minutes you’re in the ER? Because you never question the price, because you don’t have to pay it. Insurance pays for it.

And this is why you guys have a crappy healthcare system. You seem to have a basic misconception about how for profit healthcare works.

See you don't question the price not because the insurance pays for it. You don't question the price because you are in an ER. And need Emergency Care presumably. (I know this isn't the case in the US. A lot of the time, but that makes the problem worse instead of better.)

A person in need of care doesn't have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. His finger needs to be sown on. He needs an x-ray, he needs any of a 1000 things in the course of a lifetime connected to his health.

Healthcare is not like buying a t.v.. And a business does not set it's price to make shit affordable. It sets it's price to maximize profit. This means that healthcare providers have the luxury of selling a product that has infinite need and limited supply. Competition does not change that equation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's what I was pointing out and one thing Trump wants to change. That alone would create price competition.

Coming from you that's funny as hell.

WTF? Prices are not subject to licensing! There already is competition. What are you not getting? These insurance companies compete for price, just like Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplement plans do. What they can't adjust for price, they refund part of your Medicare deduction from SS or provide additional coverages.

My wife just changed her Medicare prescription coverage and eliminated her monthly charge by switching providers. We had been paying $27.40 a month just for prescriptions. Her supplement plan went up by about the same amount, so we broke even. When she bought her supplement, she was given about 10 different choices.

I am not making this up. It really already exists, but you don't seem to be aware of it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sorry, you’re too biased to face a very obvious fact: when government subsidizes something - be it insurance plans or tuition - prices go up. And because the amount of subsidies involved in Obamacare are so high, the prices absolutely skyrocketed.

We need to stop taking money from responsible, tax-paying Americans and handing it over to insurance companies. We need LESS insurance, forcing health suppliers to compete on price because real people are paying for it, and that will make prices come down.

How, for example, could a hospital get away with charging $40 for a blanket rental fee for the 25 minutes you’re in the ER? Because you never question the price, because you don’t have to pay it. Insurance pays for it.

The solution is to cover LESS. Watch the prices for routine doctor’s visits plummet.

They charge you $40 for the blanket to make up for the fact they are providing healthcare for illegals and others without insurance who pay nothing! Your insurance subsidizes the care for those without insurance.

They certainly cannot provide it for free, so that is why they charge you, someone with insurance. The same thing goes for people on Medicare and Medicaid. If a procedure costs them $1000 but Medicare only authorizes $800m where does that $200 difference come from?

 

[Hollie]

You all refused to get the government involved in healthcare solutions, and have fought against every change necessary for the ACA to work. This was something that would need yearly corrections, yet you fought hard for it to fail.

What have you offered in return? NADA.

The only way Magic Kenyan care works is to rob the taxpayers whole enriching insurance companies.

 

[dblack]

Funny how mandates are only “unconstitutional” when people don’t like the policy. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA mandate as constitutional under Congress’s taxing power.

Yep. The practice of using tax incentives to manipulate society is, essentially, the same thing - mandates. That's why Roberts was too chickenshit to strike down ACA on those grounds. If he did, people would have, correctly, argued that most tax "incentives" are mandates an should also be struck down. It would have unraveled precedent propping up a huge portion of Congressional power.

Mandates themselves clearly aren’t unconstitutional, states mandate car insurance all the time.

I'd argue against those as well, but it's a different beast - being at the state rather than the federal level.

What is unconstitutional, apparently, is applied very selectively. Free speech issues, executive war powers, due process violations, those suddenly stop mattering when the president has the right letter next to his name.

Yes. Lots of hypocrisy to go around. Neither party is really excited about limiting government power when they're running the government.

I don’t mind constitutional arguments. I do mind them being used as a partisan veto rather than a principle applied consistently.

Agreed.

 

[Lisa558]

They charge you $40 for the blanket to make up for the fact they are providing healthcare for illegals and others without insurance who pay nothing! Your insurance subsidizes the care for those without insurance.

They certainly cannot provide it for free, so that is why they charge you, someone with insurance. The same thing goes for people on Medicare and Medicaid. If a procedure costs them $1000 but Medicare only authorizes $800m where does that $200 difference come from?

Well, of course. And that’s another reason we should deport the illegals. They come at great expense to decent, lawful Americans.

We also need to take a harder look at Medicaid. Just as happens with food stamps, single women with four and five illegitimate children put them all on it - even when the fathers have full-time jobs that offer health insurance. The fathers figure “why should I put my kids on my plan when I can get responsible people to pay for them?”

I’m more sympathetic to Medicare. Unlike welfare recipients, these are elderly people who have comtributed yo the program for 50 years and now have no way of earning money.

 

[Delldude]

There already is competition. What are you not getting? These insurance companies compete for price, just like Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplement plans do.

In states was my point. And it's limited as what companies operate in each state. National competition or even insurance pools would be good for competitive rates and services.

My wife just changed her Medicare prescription coverage and eliminated her monthly charge by switching providers. We had been paying $27.40 a month just for prescriptions. Her supplement plan went up by about the same amount, so we broke even. When she bought her supplement, she was given about 10 different choices.

Coverage's vary between between one plans level of option choices. I've seen no cost freebies, but you pay more in deductibles, then several other choices each with a different level of deductible costs up to the most expensive one with little or no deductibles. Basically you are paying in advance for your deductibles. Includes specific levels of out of pocket costs also, varying with each coverage choice.

It sounds like you picked one of the options with a higher level of prescription coverage.

It really already exists, but you don't seem to be aware of it.

Been with a MA plan for some time. Every year I get maybe five competing offers from the HC providers in my state. They even have a fold out with all listed and all the differences in each plans option choices. They aren't too terribly different in coverage options.

Prices are not subject to licensing!

I didn't say there was.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In states was my point. And it's limited as what companies operate in each state. National competition or even insurance pools would be good for competitive rates and services.


Coverage's vary between between one plans level of option choices. I've seen no cost freebies, but you pay more in deductibles, then several other choices each with a different level of deductible costs up to the most expensive one with little or no deductibles. Basically you are paying in advance for your deductibles. Includes specific levels of out of pocket costs also, varying with each coverage choice.

It sounds like you picked one of the options with a higher level of prescription coverage.


Been with a MA plan for some time. Every year I get maybe five competing offers from the HC providers in my state. They even have a fold out with all listed and all the differences in each plans option choices. They aren't too terribly different in coverage options.

I didn't say there was.

Your post just basically proved everything I said was 100% correct without saying so.

 

[Delldude]

Your post just basically proved everything I said was 100% correct without saying so.

You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

You inferred I didn't know what I was talking about.....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

You inferred I didn't know what I was talking about.....

Apparently, you still don't. You claim there is no competition, yet there is plenty. You just stated that you had several options.

 

[Delldude]

Apparently, you still don't. You claim there is no competition, yet there is plenty. You just stated that you had several options.

In each state, not across the nation. For Christ's sake.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In each state, not across the nation. For Christ's sake.

Insurance companies cover multiple states and abide by the state's laws. If they were nationwide, whose laws would they have to follow? There are few federal insurance laws. Why? That interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. neither the states nor insurance companies want federal involvement.

 

[Delldude]

Insurance companies cover multiple states and abide by the state's laws. If they were nationwide, whose laws would they have to follow? There are few federal insurance laws. Why? That interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. neither the states nor insurance companies want federal involvement.

That's one of the issues under consideration.

Why can't HC companies comply with the laws in each state? I can't believe it would be that impossible.

States are against this. They're basically allowing a select group of HC companies exclusive access to their state.

I bet campaign contributions have something to do with it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's one of the issues under consideration.

Why can't HC companies comply with the laws in each state? I can't believe it would be that impossible.

States are against this. They're basically allowing a select group of HC companies exclusive access to their state.

I bet campaign contributions have something to do with it.

They do. Insurance companies often choose not to participate in certain states because of onerous rules and regulations that actually prevent competition. It is like those life insurance commercials you see on TV that say not available in "blank" states. This offer not available in "blank" state.

 

[Delldude]

They do. Insurance companies often choose not to participate in certain states because of onerous rules and regulations that actually prevent competition. It is like those life insurance commercials you see on TV that say not available in "blank" states. This offer not available in "blank" state.

I'm sure campaign contributions have nothing to do with it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm sure campaign contributions have nothing to do with it.

No. It has been that way for about a century.