|
Unions sick of ObamaCare
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 12 2013, 09:14 AM (570 Views)
|
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 23 2013, 09:44 AM
Post #16
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Oct 22 2013, 03:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 22 2013, 09:04 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 20 2013, 09:43 AM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 20 2013, 08:54 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 19 2013, 03:52 PM
Agree, which is where that problem exists. I don't know the answer, other than to put pressure on the international courts.
So do you agree that socializing healthcare doesn't actually lower or control costs?
Talk about going trying to go from point A to point Z..... Anyway, even if it didn't I believe it is wrong to be able to deny health care. And, seriously, while you may disagree with it, I don't know why you recognize someone willing to shut down the government in an obviously failed strategy to stop a law on the books as an ethical move while someone who feels that health care should be a basic human right isn't an ethical stand. That statement has nothing to do with what you personally ethically believe but rather viewing them as ethical stands.
not sure why you view this as a disconnected comment...I replied to your post that healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control by asking what you think caused it and commenting that socializing healthcare doesn't actually control costs. You replied accurately about pharm costs being a big cause of the increases. Socializing healthcare doesn't address pharm costs, so I'm just trying to confirm that you agree that socializing medicine doesn't actually decrease or control the costs. You seem afraid to answer that question for some reason.
My answer is I don't have any idea how it will affect healthcare costs. I'm not trying to dodge it....I simply have no idea. That was never the reason for my support of Obamacare. I know you agree that ethical stands should be taken on some issues, and this is one that I think ethically people should have healthcare services without being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. If that means my rates go up to partially pay for that, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with mandating insurance or paying a fine because I do feel that it's not ethical for someone who has the ability to pay for insurance to not do so and expect others to pick up the tab should they come down with cancer or have some other calamity occur. How can anyone be for a new government program without any concern for its costs? What if the government changes result in the price doubling? That will greatly reduce the quantity of health services provided, and hence the average person gets much less care. I get the liberal "in a country this rich, everyone deserves healthcare" viewpoint, but see that as an emotional, illogical approach to improving the system.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 23 2013, 05:32 PM
Post #17
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Oct 23 2013, 09:44 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 22 2013, 03:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 22 2013, 09:04 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 20 2013, 09:43 AM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 20 2013, 08:54 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 19 2013, 03:52 PM
Agree, which is where that problem exists. I don't know the answer, other than to put pressure on the international courts.
So do you agree that socializing healthcare doesn't actually lower or control costs?
Talk about going trying to go from point A to point Z..... Anyway, even if it didn't I believe it is wrong to be able to deny health care. And, seriously, while you may disagree with it, I don't know why you recognize someone willing to shut down the government in an obviously failed strategy to stop a law on the books as an ethical move while someone who feels that health care should be a basic human right isn't an ethical stand. That statement has nothing to do with what you personally ethically believe but rather viewing them as ethical stands.
not sure why you view this as a disconnected comment...I replied to your post that healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control by asking what you think caused it and commenting that socializing healthcare doesn't actually control costs. You replied accurately about pharm costs being a big cause of the increases. Socializing healthcare doesn't address pharm costs, so I'm just trying to confirm that you agree that socializing medicine doesn't actually decrease or control the costs. You seem afraid to answer that question for some reason.
My answer is I don't have any idea how it will affect healthcare costs. I'm not trying to dodge it....I simply have no idea. That was never the reason for my support of Obamacare. I know you agree that ethical stands should be taken on some issues, and this is one that I think ethically people should have healthcare services without being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. If that means my rates go up to partially pay for that, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with mandating insurance or paying a fine because I do feel that it's not ethical for someone who has the ability to pay for insurance to not do so and expect others to pick up the tab should they come down with cancer or have some other calamity occur.
How can anyone be for a new government program without any concern for its costs? What if the government changes result in the price doubling? That will greatly reduce the quantity of health services provided, and hence the average person gets much less care. I get the liberal "in a country this rich, everyone deserves healthcare" viewpoint, but see that as an emotional, illogical approach to improving the system. Please. Saying I know my rates would go up doesn't mean I expect them to double. Don't be extreme for extreme's sake.
Secondly, I have actually compared the cost of the insurance on the exchanges to what my corporation receives on the open market. Have you?
I get the "I have mine" viewpoint, but don't see that as a logical viewpoint to improving the system.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 23 2013, 08:10 PM
Post #18
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Less competition = higher costs more government regulation and red tape = higher costs fewer doctors = higher costs
What are some factors that you think could actually reduce costs?
Maybe lawsuit reform and increasing insurance competition across state lines? Maybe giving tax benefits to people who are willing to contribute capital to starting new public run insurance companies? Sadly, the UCA doesn't include any of those ideas. It does add a new tax on the healthiest of Americans in an attempt to provide a liberal "feel-good" moment.
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Oct 23 2013, 08:41 PM
Post #19
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
I've been thinking about lawsuit reform for a while now. What would the proposal be?
br
|

|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 24 2013, 09:36 AM
Post #20
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Oct 23 2013, 08:41 PM
I've been thinking about lawsuit reform for a while now. What would the proposal be?
br http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/03/gop-proposed-tort-reform-reduce-health-care-costs-analysts-say/
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 24 2013, 03:23 PM
Post #21
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 09:36 AM
Capping malpractice caps fails in cases where that malpractice cap doesn't even cover the expenses of someone's care due to the malpractice. For instance, Illinois has a medical malpractice cap of $500,000. Consider what happens to a baby who is severely handicapped -- either medically or physically -- due to medical malpractice. $500,000 will not cover the costs incurred considering their handicap is a lifetime thing.
Secondly, there hasn't been any real proof that medical malpractice caps have curbed insurance costs. The huge settlements are rare. In fact, the states with the five highest rates of malpractice insurance -- Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, and West Virginia -- were all states that had medical malpractice cap laws on their books.
I agree there does need to be reform, but it's not so cut and dry to say that caps are the answer. It's not the rare high cost cases that are killing the insurance rates...it's the pleothera of piddily cases that companies will just simply settle on because it's not worth their time and money to go and fight each one.
http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/26_3/Salvi.pdf
|
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Oct 24 2013, 04:24 PM
Post #22
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Oct 23 2013, 05:32 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 23 2013, 09:44 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 22 2013, 03:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 22 2013, 09:04 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 20 2013, 09:43 AM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 20 2013, 08:54 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 19 2013, 03:52 PM
Agree, which is where that problem exists. I don't know the answer, other than to put pressure on the international courts.
So do you agree that socializing healthcare doesn't actually lower or control costs?
Talk about going trying to go from point A to point Z..... Anyway, even if it didn't I believe it is wrong to be able to deny health care. And, seriously, while you may disagree with it, I don't know why you recognize someone willing to shut down the government in an obviously failed strategy to stop a law on the books as an ethical move while someone who feels that health care should be a basic human right isn't an ethical stand. That statement has nothing to do with what you personally ethically believe but rather viewing them as ethical stands.
not sure why you view this as a disconnected comment...I replied to your post that healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control by asking what you think caused it and commenting that socializing healthcare doesn't actually control costs. You replied accurately about pharm costs being a big cause of the increases. Socializing healthcare doesn't address pharm costs, so I'm just trying to confirm that you agree that socializing medicine doesn't actually decrease or control the costs. You seem afraid to answer that question for some reason.
My answer is I don't have any idea how it will affect healthcare costs. I'm not trying to dodge it....I simply have no idea. That was never the reason for my support of Obamacare. I know you agree that ethical stands should be taken on some issues, and this is one that I think ethically people should have healthcare services without being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. If that means my rates go up to partially pay for that, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with mandating insurance or paying a fine because I do feel that it's not ethical for someone who has the ability to pay for insurance to not do so and expect others to pick up the tab should they come down with cancer or have some other calamity occur.
How can anyone be for a new government program without any concern for its costs? What if the government changes result in the price doubling? That will greatly reduce the quantity of health services provided, and hence the average person gets much less care. I get the liberal "in a country this rich, everyone deserves healthcare" viewpoint, but see that as an emotional, illogical approach to improving the system.
Please. Saying I know my rates would go up doesn't mean I expect them to double. Don't be extreme for extreme's sake. Secondly, I have actually compared the cost of the insurance on the exchanges to what my corporation receives on the open market. Have you? I get the "I have mine" viewpoint, but don't see that as a logical viewpoint to improving the system. You logged in and gave your social security number out just to see the prices on the exchanges?
|

|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 24 2013, 04:52 PM
Post #23
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Oct 24 2013, 03:23 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 09:36 AM
Capping malpractice caps fails in cases where that malpractice cap doesn't even cover the expenses of someone's care due to the malpractice. For instance, Illinois has a medical malpractice cap of $500,000. Consider what happens to a baby who is severely handicapped -- either medically or physically -- due to medical malpractice. $500,000 will not cover the costs incurred considering their handicap is a lifetime thing. Secondly, there hasn't been any real proof that medical malpractice caps have curbed insurance costs. The huge settlements are rare. In fact, the states with the five highest rates of malpractice insurance -- Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, and West Virginia -- were all states that had medical malpractice cap laws on their books. I agree there does need to be reform, but it's not so cut and dry to say that caps are the answer. It's not the rare high cost cases that are killing the insurance rates...it's the pleothera of piddily cases that companies will just simply settle on because it's not worth their time and money to go and fight each one. http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/26_3/Salvi.pdf http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/09/03/303718.htm Ten years after the Texas Legislature capped damages in the state’s medical malpractice lawsuits, the number of suits and the amounts paid out have fallen sharply.
The Austin American Statesman reported that Department of Insurance data shows medical malpractice claims, including lawsuits, resolved in a year fell by nearly two-thirds between 2003 and 2011 to 450. The average payout declined 22 percent to about $199,000.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 24 2013, 05:53 PM
Post #24
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Oct 24 2013, 04:24 PM
- brumdog44
- Oct 23 2013, 05:32 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 23 2013, 09:44 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 22 2013, 03:54 PM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 22 2013, 09:04 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 20 2013, 09:43 AM
- Mr Gray
- Oct 20 2013, 08:54 AM
- brumdog44
- Oct 19 2013, 03:52 PM
Agree, which is where that problem exists. I don't know the answer, other than to put pressure on the international courts.
So do you agree that socializing healthcare doesn't actually lower or control costs?
Talk about going trying to go from point A to point Z..... Anyway, even if it didn't I believe it is wrong to be able to deny health care. And, seriously, while you may disagree with it, I don't know why you recognize someone willing to shut down the government in an obviously failed strategy to stop a law on the books as an ethical move while someone who feels that health care should be a basic human right isn't an ethical stand. That statement has nothing to do with what you personally ethically believe but rather viewing them as ethical stands.
not sure why you view this as a disconnected comment...I replied to your post that healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control by asking what you think caused it and commenting that socializing healthcare doesn't actually control costs. You replied accurately about pharm costs being a big cause of the increases. Socializing healthcare doesn't address pharm costs, so I'm just trying to confirm that you agree that socializing medicine doesn't actually decrease or control the costs. You seem afraid to answer that question for some reason.
My answer is I don't have any idea how it will affect healthcare costs. I'm not trying to dodge it....I simply have no idea. That was never the reason for my support of Obamacare. I know you agree that ethical stands should be taken on some issues, and this is one that I think ethically people should have healthcare services without being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. If that means my rates go up to partially pay for that, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with mandating insurance or paying a fine because I do feel that it's not ethical for someone who has the ability to pay for insurance to not do so and expect others to pick up the tab should they come down with cancer or have some other calamity occur.
How can anyone be for a new government program without any concern for its costs? What if the government changes result in the price doubling? That will greatly reduce the quantity of health services provided, and hence the average person gets much less care. I get the liberal "in a country this rich, everyone deserves healthcare" viewpoint, but see that as an emotional, illogical approach to improving the system.
Please. Saying I know my rates would go up doesn't mean I expect them to double. Don't be extreme for extreme's sake. Secondly, I have actually compared the cost of the insurance on the exchanges to what my corporation receives on the open market. Have you? I get the "I have mine" viewpoint, but don't see that as a logical viewpoint to improving the system.
You logged in and gave your social security number out just to see the prices on the exchanges? There was a website up that listed county by county in pdf form the prices of each insurance policy by level. I did find the prices competitive. The one thing that I was disappointed in was that there seemed to be a limited number of policies that covered just 'catostrophic' medical occurences....I would like to see this increased. IMO, this should be an option in every county.
Anyway, would I not investigate the cost of the exchanges? If I'm going be informed in conversations, I would hope I would really on facts as opposed to facebook comments or uninformed statements in 'investigative' journalism.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 24 2013, 06:20 PM
Post #25
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Ok, so how much does "catastropic" medical care cost? 20k? 100?
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 24 2013, 06:52 PM
Post #26
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 06:20 PM
Ok, so how much does "catastropic" medical care cost? 20k? 100? I misrepresented what I meant to say on 'catastopic insurance'. The insurance itself is very low -- it's the cheapest plan. 'Catastropic' is the name of the plan, that doesn't mean it is insurance for people with 'catastropic' illnesses. The name 'catastropic' doesn't mean that the person has a catastropic illness...it means that basically the insurance has a deductible so high that most things that other things cover it won't....it only starts to cover things if someone were to have a catastropic illness or injury.
Catastrophic insurance is different from the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans in that they have very high deductibles that have to be paid before any insurance kicks in. They also area limited to those under 30 in which no other health care exists that is less than 8% of their income. It is very minimal coverage....basically it covers three doctor visits and some preventive care things like cholesterol tests, but beyond that a single person has to pay a deductible. Tax credits are not available for catastrophic insurance and the actuarial value of the plan is under 60%.....again, the attraction to the plan isn't that it offers good coverage.
Here is a side by side comparison of the bronze and catastropic plans.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2013/08/28/aca-obamacare-bronze-tier-vs-catastrophic-health-insurance
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 24 2013, 07:39 PM
Post #27
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Oct 24 2013, 06:52 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 06:20 PM
Ok, so how much does "catastropic" medical care cost? 20k? 100?
I misrepresented what I meant to say on 'catastopic insurance'. The insurance itself is very low -- it's the cheapest plan. 'Catastropic' is the name of the plan, that doesn't mean it is insurance for people with 'catastropic' illnesses. The name 'catastropic' doesn't mean that the person has a catastropic illness...it means that basically the insurance has a deductible so high that most things that other things cover it won't....it only starts to cover things if someone were to have a catastropic illness or injury. Catastrophic insurance is different from the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans in that they have very high deductibles that have to be paid before any insurance kicks in. They also area limited to those under 30 in which no other health care exists that is less than 8% of their income. It is very minimal coverage....basically it covers three doctor visits and some preventive care things like cholesterol tests, but beyond that a single person has to pay a deductible. Tax credits are not available for catastrophic insurance and the actuarial value of the plan is under 60%.....again, the attraction to the plan isn't that it offers good coverage. Here is a side by side comparison of the bronze and catastropic plans. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2013/08/28/aca-obamacare-bronze-tier-vs-catastrophic-health-insurance My question was not clear. I meant to ask how high to medical costs need to be before they are considered "catastrophic?" For somebody making minimum wage, $100k is pretty "catastrophic." There's no good reason why we can't have competitive insurance. Actuarial science is pretty well understood, and there are plenty of folks willing to put their capital to work for a good return, e.g. 7-8%. There's no reason insurance companies should be making profits higher than a modest opportunity cost.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 24 2013, 08:10 PM
Post #28
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 07:39 PM
- brumdog44
- Oct 24 2013, 06:52 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 06:20 PM
Ok, so how much does "catastropic" medical care cost? 20k? 100?
I misrepresented what I meant to say on 'catastopic insurance'. The insurance itself is very low -- it's the cheapest plan. 'Catastropic' is the name of the plan, that doesn't mean it is insurance for people with 'catastropic' illnesses. The name 'catastropic' doesn't mean that the person has a catastropic illness...it means that basically the insurance has a deductible so high that most things that other things cover it won't....it only starts to cover things if someone were to have a catastropic illness or injury. Catastrophic insurance is different from the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans in that they have very high deductibles that have to be paid before any insurance kicks in. They also area limited to those under 30 in which no other health care exists that is less than 8% of their income. It is very minimal coverage....basically it covers three doctor visits and some preventive care things like cholesterol tests, but beyond that a single person has to pay a deductible. Tax credits are not available for catastrophic insurance and the actuarial value of the plan is under 60%.....again, the attraction to the plan isn't that it offers good coverage. Here is a side by side comparison of the bronze and catastropic plans. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2013/08/28/aca-obamacare-bronze-tier-vs-catastrophic-health-insurance
My question was not clear. I meant to ask how high to medical costs need to be before they are considered "catastrophic?" For somebody making minimum wage, $100k is pretty "catastrophic." There's no good reason why we can't have competitive insurance. Actuarial science is pretty well understood, and there are plenty of folks willing to put their capital to work for a good return, e.g. 7-8%. There's no reason insurance companies should be making profits higher than a modest opportunity cost. I think your question is separate from what 'catastrophic insurance' covers. Catastrophic is just a term for insurance which basically only would kick in after a high deductible is met and certainly has been around who a long time.
BTW, the 60% actuarial cost I am speaking of is not saying that the insurance company recieves on average a 40% profit....it is saying that on average that insurance would cover 60% of the bills incurred under this type of insurance while the client would be paying 40% of the bill.
Anyway, I agree that there are certainly a lot of businesses that put their capital to work for a good rate of return of 7 to 8%. That hasn't be true of insurance companies....I can tell you that one year the insurance company that covered my corporation saw an 88% cost to premimum ratio, meaning a 12% profit. For the next year, their bid on our premiums increased by 12%....meaning after receiving a 12% profit, they felt a potential 24% profit was in order for the next year.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Oct 24 2013, 10:53 PM
Post #29
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Oct 24 2013, 08:10 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 07:39 PM
- brumdog44
- Oct 24 2013, 06:52 PM
- HoosierLars
- Oct 24 2013, 06:20 PM
Ok, so how much does "catastropic" medical care cost? 20k? 100?
I misrepresented what I meant to say on 'catastopic insurance'. The insurance itself is very low -- it's the cheapest plan. 'Catastropic' is the name of the plan, that doesn't mean it is insurance for people with 'catastropic' illnesses. The name 'catastropic' doesn't mean that the person has a catastropic illness...it means that basically the insurance has a deductible so high that most things that other things cover it won't....it only starts to cover things if someone were to have a catastropic illness or injury. Catastrophic insurance is different from the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans in that they have very high deductibles that have to be paid before any insurance kicks in. They also area limited to those under 30 in which no other health care exists that is less than 8% of their income. It is very minimal coverage....basically it covers three doctor visits and some preventive care things like cholesterol tests, but beyond that a single person has to pay a deductible. Tax credits are not available for catastrophic insurance and the actuarial value of the plan is under 60%.....again, the attraction to the plan isn't that it offers good coverage. Here is a side by side comparison of the bronze and catastropic plans. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2013/08/28/aca-obamacare-bronze-tier-vs-catastrophic-health-insurance
My question was not clear. I meant to ask how high to medical costs need to be before they are considered "catastrophic?" For somebody making minimum wage, $100k is pretty "catastrophic." There's no good reason why we can't have competitive insurance. Actuarial science is pretty well understood, and there are plenty of folks willing to put their capital to work for a good return, e.g. 7-8%. There's no reason insurance companies should be making profits higher than a modest opportunity cost.
I think your question is separate from what 'catastrophic insurance' covers. Catastrophic is just a term for insurance which basically only would kick in after a high deductible is met and certainly has been around who a long time. BTW, the 60% actuarial cost I am speaking of is not saying that the insurance company recieves on average a 40% profit....it is saying that on average that insurance would cover 60% of the bills incurred under this type of insurance while the client would be paying 40% of the bill. Anyway, I agree that there are certainly a lot of businesses that put their capital to work for a good rate of return of 7 to 8%. That hasn't be true of insurance companies....I can tell you that one year the insurance company that covered my corporation saw an 88% cost to premimum ratio, meaning a 12% profit. For the next year, their bid on our premiums increased by 12%....meaning after receiving a 12% profit, they felt a potential 24% profit was in order for the next year. So if an insurance company makes 24% profit, and if the insurance marketplace is functioning correctly, there should be a rush of competitors. That's what we should have been trying to understand and fix, not implementing a very complicated new law.
If the main concern is insuring the uninsured, then the government should pony up the money, and taxes must be raised to cover those costs. Trying to hide the costs like ObamaCare does is disingenuous, which is very disappointing for the admin that claimed it would be the most transparent in history.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Oct 24 2013, 11:20 PM
Post #30
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Seems like if republicans were interested in fixing that, they would have at the height of the increases when they controlled the presidency and both houses under Bush. It didn't happen.
And the fact is that neither party has ever been interested in doing so because so many of them are receiving big money from insurance in campaign contributions.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09
Some of these numbers should disgust everyone. In 2008, the average senator regardless of party was receiving over $150,000 in contributions from insurance companies. The average representative was receiving around $40,000. That's over $15 million in campaign contributions to senate races and about $17 million in campaign contributions in house races. Add to that $150 million dollars spend on lobbying. So that's $182 million spent by the insurance industry on trying to influence political decisions. The numbers in 2012 were basically the same.
The point is that the insurance industry was NOT functioning properly. And I'm sorry, but your idea of 'letting them compete across state lines' IMO is pie in the sky reasoning without any basis in reality. It isn't state lines that are driving health care costs up.
And we absolutely looked at other insurance companies and the rates were all basically the same. I'd like to believe that it is simply dumb luck that they were all the same, but when the going rates continue to produce huge profits for all, it seems to be more than coincidence. And the differences between insurance companies seem less to do with what they charge and more to do with what doctors/hospitals are considered in network.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|