Question for conservatives who oppose ACA

[dblack]

I don't think that government should be involved at all, except for some tort reform so lawyers can't get rich preying on the medical community.

So, is that a no?

Sorry, I can't do baby talk for ya.

But you can do equivocation and evasion!

 

[dblack]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

I don't believe the Government should be involved in the medical insurance or health care businesses at all.

Having said that, if the Government is involved, I believe it should be solely along the lines of ensuring that companies are not price gouging and are actually making realistic decisions on the risks a particular customer presents.

The guy who is now a non-smoker at age 50 but from ages 14-45 smoked 2 packs a day is not the same risk as someone who is 50 and has never smoked at all.

Likewise.... I am diagnosed with Sturges Weber Syndrome. I have all the classic symptoms, but none of them at the level to make them disabling. At age 18 I had to get a waiver for my life insurance to be raised because most full SWS patients don't live long enough to be insurable. I pay a,higher premium because of my condition but I'm not banned from getting good the insurance.

Why couldn't we put a similar appeals system in place for health insurance providers?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I was referring to the law requiring insurance companies to sell policies to people who will cost them far more than they will ever pay in via premiums. Are you in favor of such a requirement in the Republican's new health care bill?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Republicans motis operandi is to oppose everything on the table and the solution is always some fantasy land thing that no one is proposing or that exists anywhere in the world.

 

[martybegan]

...also higher risks should pay more so lower risks don't have to subsidize them. IF we have to have government involved. If you are obese you should pony up.

This is where we need to work too. The healthy half of the population could have reasonable premiums. The other half should pay to play. If the premiums are too high for high risk, they get subsidized along with a program to help them regain their health. If they decline, the help declines.

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

 

[martybegan]

Someone on CBS said it best this morning. The GOP plan is one based on political philosophy and not healthcare reform. Even Bill Clinton sees Obamcare as a joke. Neither party seems interested in real change.

The ACA was/is in a death spiral. What exactly did you expect the GOP to do?

let it die or repeal it and start over. Some people may get screwed, but right now I'm getting screwed by the ACA.

 

[dblack]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

 

[martybegan]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

It's not that they are "responsible", it's pooled risk. I know that the government is trying to skew the risk registers around, but there has to be a better way than the twinkie police.

As a temp fix, let State governments make up any risk difference for pre-existing conditions, and let the feds give block grants for it. It allows the elimination of Obamacare and gives people time to figure things out for the future.

 

[saveliberty]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

Marty, I said that was if you were receiving government support for premium payments. Not unusual for an entitlement to have regulations.

 

[dblack]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

It's not that they are "responsible", it's pooled risk.

How is that different? The point is, when the government is responsible for your health care costs, government has a vested interest in preventing you from doing things that put your health at risk (eg. snowboarding).

 

[saveliberty]

How is that different? The point is, when the government is responsible for your health care costs, government has a vested interest in preventing you from doing things that put your health at risk (eg. snowboarding).

Governments are not responsible, they are accountable.
People are suppose to be responsible, government makes that less likely.

 

[martybegan]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

Marty, I said that was if you were receiving government support for premium payments. Not unusual for an entitlement to have regulations.

Sorry, missed that part.

 

[martybegan]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

It's not that they are "responsible", it's pooled risk.

How is that different? The point is, when the government is responsible for your health care costs, government has a vested interest in preventing you from doing things that put your health at risk (eg. snowboarding).

Yes, or sitting around and eating cheetos all day.

I am a net contributor to health care probably 18 out of the 20 years I have had insurance. If its truly insurance it needs people like me in the system.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

He's gonna keep his promise...clap, clap...but he's also allowing the industry free reign in what they'll charge you. Which will mean higher premiums....thus causing many to just opt out. ANY ONE WHO BELIEVES TRUMP IS LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR BEST INTEREST, HAD BETTER THINK AGAIN. THE ONLY PEOPLE THE LYIN KING GIVES A **** ABOUT IS AS FOLLOWS:

1) RED NECK GOOD OL BOYS THAT RIDE AND DIE OFF HIS TWEETS
2) ALL MOTHERFUCKERS WITH SERIOUS MONEY AND
3) THE TRUMP BRAND...THAT'S IT...TO THE REST....DON'T WORRY, ITS GONNA BE TERRIFIC!!

If it weren't fer all the niggas doctor shopping in emergency rooms and illegals flooding waiting rooms, health care wouldn't be so expensive and it wouldn't be such a mess. But now we got to clean up the Democrats f'n mess.

 

[dblack]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

It's not that they are "responsible", it's pooled risk.

How is that different? The point is, when the government is responsible for your health care costs, government has a vested interest in preventing you from doing things that put your health at risk (eg. snowboarding).

Yes, or sitting around and eating cheetos all day.

I am a net contributor to health care probably 18 out of the 20 years I have had insurance. If its truly insurance it needs people like me in the system.

Uh, ok. Either way, The issue you raised with either insurance companies, or government if they take on our health care costs, is a real threat. Both have a strong interest in 'promoting' better health. The insurance companies can't do all they'd like though, because they don't have the power. The worst they can do is cancel your policy. Government, on the other hand, can pass whatever laws they like - all in the name of saving the taxpayer's money.

 

[martybegan]

So you want either government or insurance companies to be able to force you to exercise?

How about I force some snowboarding nimrod to stay on the bunny slope?

That's the endgame. It's inevitable. If your neighbors are responsible for paying for your health care, they have a justifiable interest in protecting their investment.

It's not that they are "responsible", it's pooled risk.

How is that different? The point is, when the government is responsible for your health care costs, government has a vested interest in preventing you from doing things that put your health at risk (eg. snowboarding).

Yes, or sitting around and eating cheetos all day.

I am a net contributor to health care probably 18 out of the 20 years I have had insurance. If its truly insurance it needs people like me in the system.

Uh, ok. Either way, The issue you raised with either insurance companies, or government if they take on our health care costs, is a real threat. Both have a strong interest in 'promoting' better health. The insurance companies can't do all they'd like though, because they don't have the power. The worst they can do is cancel your policy. Government, on the other hand, can pass whatever laws they like - all in the name of saving the taxpayer's money.

I've been doing wellness plans to lower my premiums and get more HSA $$.

And yes, government can have the force of law behind it.

The issue is how do the Republicans clean up the mess Obamacare left without just being voted out 2 and 4 years later?

 

[task0778]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

No. You can't buy auto insurance after you have an accident and expect them to pay for it. Ditto for home insurance, they aren't going to pay for your house burning down or getting burglarized after you get a policy. So why should anybody get HC coverage for a pre-existing condition?

Seems to me the best option would be a mandatory federal deduction from every paycheck for catastrophic HCI just like SSI. It won't cover anything other than high-cost care stuff, and I think it should be up to the states to offer HCI coverage beyond that, with the proviso that no insurance company can be denied the opportunity to offer policies in any state as long as they aren't ripping people off. In those instances I think the state should be able to hammer the insurance company hard, to include jail time for the top executives of that company.

 

[Slashsnake]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

You know, as much as I want to see people that are 100% healthy, it's just not going to magically happen because there's "healthcare for all." I thought Trump's and the republican's idea of our "new administration" was to reduce pretty much every regulation businesses had to follow.

Telling the insurance companies to cover everyone is like telling car insurance companies they have to cover high risk drivers. There should be a special "pool" for those with conditions like diabetes, heart disease etc. This pool should pay for one's gym membership and make them go a set # of times a year in order to keep their health insurance plan. Additionally, the plans in this "pool" shouldn't have an out of pocket maximum which will reduce the cost of insuring these people. Add in a 50% higher deductible when compared to a similar plan, and we may have more affordable insurance for the "healthy" this way.

At the same time, though, I understand the administration doesn't want to lose their spots, so they need to cater to the wants of the people, which is to cover everyone.

 

[Slashsnake]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

No. You can't buy auto insurance after you have an accident and expect them to pay for it. Ditto for home insurance, they aren't going to pay for your house burning down or getting burglarized after you get a policy. So why should anybody get HC coverage for a pre-existing condition?

Seems to me the best option would be a mandatory federal deduction from every paycheck for catastrophic HCI just like SSI. It won't cover anything other than high-cost care stuff, and I think it should be up to the states to offer HCI coverage beyond that, with the proviso that no insurance company can be denied the opportunity to offer policies in any state as long as they aren't ripping people off. In those instances I think the state should be able to hammer the insurance company hard, to include jail time for the top executives of that company.

A mandatory tax on a paycheck is against everything the republicans are about... It would never happen with this administration.

 

[Slashsnake]

...also higher risks should pay more so lower risks don't have to subsidize them. IF we have to have government involved. If you are obese you should pony up.

While I agree with you, insurance is about spreading the risk. Has you auto insurance gone up lately? It will because of cell phones. You and I and everyone because people insist on texting and talking on their phones while driving will be punished regardless if we have ever caused an accident from cell phone use while driving.

Car insurance companies raise premiums for everyone in a high risk area because they have to pay for the damage not only for their car, but to your car if that person hits you. In the health insurance industry, someone can't give me diabetes. Sure you have the spreadable issues like the flu, but those temporary sicknesses shouldn't warrant a doctor's visit anyway unless you need a note.

 

[task0778]

Do you agree with Trump's goal of keeping the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to people who are already sick?

No. You can't buy auto insurance after you have an accident and expect them to pay for it. Ditto for home insurance, they aren't going to pay for your house burning down or getting burglarized after you get a policy. So why should anybody get HC coverage for a pre-existing condition?

Seems to me the best option would be a mandatory federal deduction from every paycheck for catastrophic HCI just like SSI. It won't cover anything other than high-cost care stuff, and I think it should be up to the states to offer HCI coverage beyond that, with the proviso that no insurance company can be denied the opportunity to offer policies in any state as long as they aren't ripping people off. In those instances I think the state should be able to hammer the insurance company hard, to include jail time for the top executives of that company.

A mandatory tax on a paycheck is against everything the republicans are about... It would never happen with this administration.

I think Trump would do it cuz he's on record as saying everyone needs coverage. But as you say it'll never happen but not because of him but rather the GOP controlled Congress. It's the only way I can see to help the low income and no-income people, a Trust Fund for catastrophic HC similar to the SSTF but not allowing the pols to get their grubby hands on any excess money for a given year. And everybody pays into the fund, even the self-employed.