07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 2829303132 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    I think that it is wrong for the government to force people to buy insurance, and for the majority it will be at a higher rate if their present companies drop their policies. I priced Obamacare's Gold level (to be comparable with my present BCBS coverage), and the premium was $918.00 before credit and $655.00 after credit, as opposed to $450.00 that I pay now. Am I saving $2500.00/year?
    Plus Obama flat out LIED to us about being able to keep our present policies and doctors, and now documents have reportedly surfaced that shows that he knew in 2010 that people would lose their present policies, yet still lied to citizens.
    10-29-2013 11:31 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    I think that it is wrong for the government to force people to buy insurance, and for the majority it will be at a higher rate if their present companies drop their policies. I priced Obamacare's Gold level (to be comparable with my present BCBS coverage), and the premium was $918.00 before credit and $655.00 after credit, as opposed to $450.00 that I pay now. Am I saving $2500.00/year?
    Plus Obama flat out LIED to us about being able to keep our present policies and doctors, and now documents have reportedly surfaced that shows that he knew in 2010 that people would lose their present policies, yet still lied to citizens.
    I'm not big on defending any politician, but I think he/they said most people. The model we use where most people have insurance through their employers makes that accurate. So far almost all of the plans ending are individually purchased or supplemental plans, and I think the count is still under s million. That leaves 90% or more of families on their same insurance plans, and we already knew that the downside would be to single people in good health not on a company plan.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-29-2013 11:41 AM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I don't know how factual this was, coming from Facebook, but I saw a graph that the number was nearly 1.5mil that lost their insurance so far and I'm guessing the number is going to keep climbing. And how can premiums not go up? You're now forcing extra coverages and removing pre-existing conditions to be accepted. Even if you like those ideas, you can't argue that insurance companies will see costs skyrocket, especially with pre-existing conditions. If you're someone with a major issue like cancer, the insurance companies know they're going to be spending hundreds of thousands on you. Maybe millions in some cases. They aren't about to give that money away without making it up somewhere else.
    10-29-2013 11:53 AM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't know how factual this was, coming from Facebook, but I saw a graph that the number was nearly 1.5mil that lost their insurance so far and I'm guessing the number is going to keep climbing. And how can premiums not go up? You're now forcing extra coverages and removing pre-existing conditions to be accepted. Even if you like those ideas, you can't argue that insurance companies will see costs skyrocket, especially with pre-existing conditions. If you're someone with a major issue like cancer, the insurance companies know they're going to be spending hundreds of thousands on you. Maybe millions in some cases. They aren't about to give that money away without making it up somewhere else.
    The politicians thought that the mandate would offset the costs short term and competition would keep costs low. No business has ever become federally subsidized and not immediately raised prices. Their revenue IS going to go up. But prices will raise to reflect the increase in expense. Has Mc Donald's ever lowered the price of a cheese burger during the summer when beef costs are low, or during the shutdown when they had no obligation to do inspections? Nope. Prices go one direction in the absence of a true market.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-29-2013 11:59 AM
  5. pappy53's Avatar
    I'm not big on defending any politician, but I think he/they said most people. The model we use where most people have insurance through their employers makes that accurate. So far almost all of the plans ending are individually purchased or supplemental plans, and I think the count is still under s million. That leaves 90% or more of families on their same insurance plans, and we already knew that the downside would be to single people in good health not on a company plan.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    He never said most people. And the fact that he knew about it in 2010, and still lied about it is inexcusable.

    10-29-2013 11:59 AM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    He never said most people. And the fact that he knew about it in 2010, and still lied about it is inexcusable.
    He said 100% of current policies would continue? If so, yes that's a lie. The law requires ending plans that don't meet standards. I can't imagine any politician making an absolute statement like that.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-29-2013 12:03 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    In that video, he specified if you have insurance through your employer, through medicaid, medicare or the VA, nothing in the law requires them to change. Even that doesn't mean that they won't change, just that they won't be forced to by the government. Additionally, for the first few truncated quotes, it is saying that if you have health insurance, the law won't require you to find other insurance. That's still true, in that the law is not requiring anyone to cancel their own policies, the insurance companies are doing that. It's as a result of their interpretation on how to make the most money off of the law, so it should have been foreseen, but that's still a far cry from the president personally cancelling an individual's plan just to spite them or screw them over or whatever the interpretation is. It's a political statement in that it's true, but it just might not mean what everyone thinks that they are hearing. It's entirely plausible that they didn't have the foresight to ask the insurance companies how they would handle noncompliant policies, whether they would upgrade them or cancel them, or whatever.

    That video crashes YouTube and Tapatalk for some reason, works fine on desktop though *shrug*.
    10-29-2013 12:10 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    A major key to understanding politicians is to think about how corporate attorneys might frame PR statements, how the plaintiff counsel will attack those statements when the company is sued, and how defense counsel will defend the verbiage.
    10-29-2013 12:20 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    That's still true, in that the law is not requiring anyone to cancel their own policies, the insurance companies are doing that. It's as a result of their interpretation on how to make the most money off of the law, so it should have been foreseen, but that's still a far cry from the president personally cancelling an individual's plan just to spite them or screw them over or whatever the interpretation is.
    I would disagree to that. The law put in additional requirements that many policies don't meet. If you have one of those, your options are limited and the end result is either a change or cancellation of your policy. The law was sold on the promise that wouldn't be forced on you. Here's how it would go: Most companies are flat out canceling non-confirming policies and offering conforming ones at higher rates. Either you take the new one or go without, but your old policy had to be cancelled. The other would be to modify existing policies to conform, which requires you to sign the amended contract. If you sign it, you're again pushed out of a policy you wanted and into a more expensive one. Or you don't sign it and it gets cancelled anyway. That has nothing to do with insurance companies trying to rake in more money, and the markets are still too competitive for there to be some conspiracy among them (not to mention illegal) to hold prices unnaturally high.
    10-29-2013 12:48 PM
  10. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Not to mention most of the payment structure from this plan was supposed to be paid by young people. But you then allow young people to stay on parents policies until 26 years old. Most young people I talk to will pay the fine. So who does that leave to pay for it all?

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    10-29-2013 02:14 PM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    Not to mention most of the payment structure from this plan was supposed to be paid by young people. But you then allow young people to stay on parents policies until 26 years old. Most young people I talk to will pay the fine. So who does that leave to pay for it all?

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment

    The sick will pay their own way or it will be ripped out of everyone's rear ends through taxes.
    10-29-2013 02:36 PM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    The sick will pay their own way or it will be ripped out of everyone's rear ends through taxes.
    Could the insurance industry do anything in the years before Obamacare? I believe medical costs were rising long before Obama was even a candidate for president.
    10-29-2013 03:23 PM
  13. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Could the insurance industry do anything in the years before Obamacare? I believe medical costs were rising long before Obama was even a candidate for president.
    Prices on everything goes up for the most part. It had been 4 years since my insurance premium went up. It went up this year and I got notified that flexible spending accounts now have a cap via ACA guidelines.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    10-29-2013 04:38 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Prices on everything goes up for the most part. It had been 4 years since my insurance premium went up. It went up this year and I got notified that flexible spending accounts now have a cap via ACA guidelines.
    I understand that prices will go up because of factors like inflation. However, I always thought the problem with medical bills was that they were rising much faster.

    If the ACA never existed, but if everyone voluntarily signed up for an insurance plan, would your premiums go down?
    10-29-2013 04:45 PM
  15. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I understand that prices will go up because of factors like inflation. However, I always thought the problem with medical bills was that they were rising much faster.
    That's probably true, but other big reasons before ACA are massive malpractice suits, over testing for no other reason than to prevent lawsuits, and already increasing regulations.

    If the ACA never existed, but if everyone voluntarily signed up for an insurance plan, would your premiums go down?
    I suspect they could down a fair bit because people could still get more customized plans that worked best for them, not buying coverages they don't need. As well as insurance companies not being forced to cover pre-existing conditions and also simply signing up people with existing guidelines and not having spend who knows how much in additional compliance costs to make sure they're within the bounds of the new law.
    10-29-2013 05:14 PM
  16. pappy53's Avatar
    In that video, he specified if you have insurance through your employer, through medicaid, medicare or the VA, nothing in the law requires them to change. Even that doesn't mean that they won't change, just that they won't be forced to by the government. Additionally, for the first few truncated quotes, it is saying that if you have health insurance, the law won't require you to find other insurance. That's still true, in that the law is not requiring anyone to cancel their own policies, the insurance companies are doing that. It's as a result of their interpretation on how to make the most money off of the law, so it should have been foreseen, but that's still a far cry from the president personally cancelling an individual's plan just to spite them or screw them over or whatever the interpretation is. It's a political statement in that it's true, but it just might not mean what everyone thinks that they are hearing. It's entirely plausible that they didn't have the foresight to ask the insurance companies how they would handle noncompliant policies, whether they would upgrade them or cancel them, or whatever.

    That video crashes YouTube and Tapatalk for some reason, works fine on desktop though *shrug*.
    He said, unequivocally, that "if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance". No stipulations, no truncated quotes. Lies.
    10-29-2013 05:40 PM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    That's probably true, but other big reasons before ACA are massive malpractice suits, over testing for no other reason than to prevent lawsuits, and already increasing regulations.
    Should people be offered the choice to waive their right to sue for malpractice in exchange for lower premiums on health insurance?
    10-29-2013 06:10 PM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    I suspect they could down a fair bit because people could still get more customized plans that worked best for them, not buying coverages they don't need. As well as insurance companies not being forced to cover pre-existing conditions and also simply signing up people with existing guidelines and not having spend who knows how much in additional compliance costs to make sure they're within the bounds of the new law.
    I'm thinking the insurance companies could have done more to change how health insurance is offered in an attempt to head off Obamacare. This could have started during Obama's first term. Obviously, they didn't change, so now we're stuck with Obamacare.
    10-29-2013 06:14 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Hmmmm.... I don't know if that would ever even be a legal option. What I will say is that I wouldn't waive that right under any circumstance when dealing with my health. I'm far from lawsuit happy, but that ability is fundamental to consumer safety and health by helping keep companies honest. I wouldn't even waive the right if it meant free health insurance. Hopefully that answers your question satisfactorily.
    10-29-2013 06:19 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm thinking the insurance companies could have done more to change how health insurance is offered in an attempt to head off Obamacare. This could have started during Obama's first term. Obviously, they didn't change, so now we're stuck with Obamacare.
    Insurance companies of all sorts are heavily regulated as it is. I suspect there wasn't much they could do, and that regulation also was a hindrance to new competition. I do know the Republicans had tried to relax some that would open up competition and help lower premiums, but that never made it far.
    10-29-2013 06:25 PM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    He said, unequivocally, that "if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance". No stipulations, no truncated quotes. Lies.
    Check out the full explanation at around 0:55.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-29-2013 06:26 PM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    Hmmmm.... I don't know if that would ever even be a legal option. What I will say is that I wouldn't waive that right under any circumstance when dealing with my health.
    It is a difficult question to answer. On one hand, malpractice suits raise costs for everyone. The settlement payments can be very high, and doctors have to order extra tests to protect themselves from future lawsuits (as you previously mentioned). On the other hand, if someone is injured due to incompetence, we need a mechanism to recover from the damage and prevent future injuries.

    Honestly, sometimes I think the trial lawyers are all behind this. I'm sure they charge lucrative legal fees for each case.
    10-29-2013 07:45 PM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Insurance companies of all sorts are heavily regulated as it is. I suspect there wasn't much they could do, and that regulation also was a hindrance to new competition. I do know the Republicans had tried to relax some that would open up competition and help lower premiums, but that never made it far.
    So, perhaps Obamacare was inevitable? Under the regulations at the time, nothing could be done in the private sector, so the government had no choice but to step in.
    10-29-2013 07:48 PM
  24. Mooncatt's Avatar
    So, perhaps Obamacare was inevitable? Under the regulations at the time, nothing could be done in the private sector, so the government had no choice but to step in.
    I wouldn't say something like Obamacare would have been inevitable or that government had to take control of anything. I argue that they already have messed things up too much by stepping in any place they can, so that's why I don't think stepping in more would somehow make it better. Should government have done something at all is different. While the Democrats wanted to step in more, the Republicans wanted to step out (as in my earlier example) so the private sector could do more for the consumer.
    10-29-2013 08:16 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    He said, unequivocally, that "if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance". No stipulations, no truncated quotes. Lies.
    He didn't just say it in that video.
    He said it many times, at many press conferences, town halls, etc.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-29-2013 08:33 PM
1,900 ... 2829303132 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD