Page 46 of 57 [ 899 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ... 57  Next

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

26 Nov 2013, 4:21 pm

Jacoby wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
When you invite government into healthcare you invite them into your lives. Do you drink? You pay more. Do you smoke marijuana? You pay more. Do you own a gun? You pay more.


Interesting examples considering that it is illegal under the ACA to use any of those things for premium pricing.

As for smoking, it was a concession granted to gain support for the bill. You won't find a single bill that hasn't had a whole boatload of concessions stuffed in. Smoking has been proven in many studies to be the single largest negative factor in preventable death in the US, so I can kind of see how it is relevant to an industry that makes its money via risk assessment. The fact that they are not using even more ways to charge people extra is a good thing, IMO.


It sets precedence and government always oversteps the lines it draws for itself. This isn't some foreign idea, Obama's "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein is quite fond of the idea of "nudging" people into behaviors they want.

The surcharge on smokers is unacceptable as it is regardless.


You do realize that part of this law was to reduce the things an insurance company could discriminate against you for, don't you? The fact that smoking is the only remaining thing that insurance companies can use against you is a progression away from this imagined governmental dictation of health care you seem to be clinging to. Prior to the ACA, the insurance companies could charge you more because you lived in a city, where it is more dangerous, or more if you lived in the country, where access to an emergency room is limited. You could be charged more for being single, divorced, or because you were in a car accident 30 years ago. You could be charged more if one of your parents died young (no matter what the casue). You could be charged more for actually utilizing your health coverage. You could be charged more based on your sexual orientation, socio-economic status, weight, or height. You should be happy that this law removes surcharges for the majority of things that did have them.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Nov 2013, 4:57 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
When you invite government into healthcare you invite them into your lives. Do you drink? You pay more. Do you smoke marijuana? You pay more. Do you own a gun? You pay more.


Interesting examples considering that it is illegal under the ACA to use any of those things for premium pricing.

As for smoking, it was a concession granted to gain support for the bill. You won't find a single bill that hasn't had a whole boatload of concessions stuffed in. Smoking has been proven in many studies to be the single largest negative factor in preventable death in the US, so I can kind of see how it is relevant to an industry that makes its money via risk assessment. The fact that they are not using even more ways to charge people extra is a good thing, IMO.


It sets precedence and government always oversteps the lines it draws for itself. This isn't some foreign idea, Obama's "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein is quite fond of the idea of "nudging" people into behaviors they want.

The surcharge on smokers is unacceptable as it is regardless.


You do realize that part of this law was to reduce the things an insurance company could discriminate against you for, don't you? The fact that smoking is the only remaining thing that insurance companies can use against you is a progression away from this imagined governmental dictation of health care you seem to be clinging to. Prior to the ACA, the insurance companies could charge you more because you lived in a city, where it is more dangerous, or more if you lived in the country, where access to an emergency room is limited. You could be charged more for being single, divorced, or because you were in a car accident 30 years ago. You could be charged more if one of your parents died young (no matter what the casue). You could be charged more for actually utilizing your health coverage. You could be charged more based on your sexual orientation, socio-economic status, weight, or height. You should be happy that this law removes surcharges for the majority of things that did have them.


It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

26 Nov 2013, 5:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn


I'm not arguing that at all. I am just providing a rebuttal to the claim that the government involvement is going to lead to more discrimination based on specific of the individual and that the whole "smokers pay more" is somehow the ACA's fault (despite the fact that this was the case prior to its passage).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

26 Nov 2013, 5:38 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn


I'm not arguing that at all. I am just providing a rebuttal to the claim that the government involvement is going to lead to more discrimination based on specific of the individual and that the whole "smokers pay more" is somehow the ACA's fault (despite the fact that this was the case prior to its passage).


Now you're forced to participate

this also disproportionately hurts the people this law supposedly wants to help, lower income Americans smoke at much higher rates and there is no evidence that this will cause people to quit smoking. You can't call it affordable healthcare when 34% of lower income people are going to see their rates skyrocket.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

27 Nov 2013, 7:42 am

Jacoby wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn


I'm not arguing that at all. I am just providing a rebuttal to the claim that the government involvement is going to lead to more discrimination based on specific of the individual and that the whole "smokers pay more" is somehow the ACA's fault (despite the fact that this was the case prior to its passage).


Now you're forced to participate

this also disproportionately hurts the people this law supposedly wants to help, lower income Americans smoke at much higher rates and there is no evidence that this will cause people to quit smoking. You can't call it affordable healthcare when 34% of lower income people are going to see their rates skyrocket.


Seeing as how most poor people weren't insured, they aren't going to see their rates skyrocket. Not to mention the fact that those people you are so "concerned" about are going to get subsidies to pay for their premiums, your arguments are severely flawed. Also, since many of these poor people are going to be on Medicaid, they wouldn't even be required to purchase any additional insurance. Come back with some reasonable arguments.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

27 Nov 2013, 9:34 am

Well..my wife's brother is schizophrenic..but not schizophrenic enough to any longer qualify for SSI..or medicaid..but unfortunately unemployable still..

So Obamacare specifically helps people in these 'tween areas of maybe or maybe not disability and not likely to ever work...

So yah...we can help feed him now..without using our own retirement funds for getting him that operation he may need one day for heart trouble or whatever....

The key here is..if we were to exhaust all our funds in helping his health problems..which is not likely but possible...there would no longer be hundreds of dollars of our money pouring into the economy each week..as we probably go out to eat and shop at least 10 times a week...

There are lots of families in these situations..where some people are well off and help those family members with health care who are not well off..

But the bottom line is..more money in the pocket means more money in the economy..

And that simply ain't gonna happen for people whose credit is ruined for not paying their medical bills...or for people who drain all their expendable income on the medical bills of other family members...

But the problem is...people in general do not like change..they will wait and wait and wait..to get used to the 'NEW' program..but when fully in effect..the potential for more productivity and spending in the economy in this nation will likely be substantial..

And really that's just common sense..common sense..

For anyone who has spent anytime in the real world with the average Joe..and not some JOE the plumber made up on TV....

The only change and promise that needs to be broken to get this thing to work..is to make penalties with real teeth for those who do not get into the program...

Hard times require hard decisions..

People in this country overall are simply spoiled that is all..

From bottom to top...from top to bottom..as far as I can see..as compared to the real life circumstances of most other countries..in the real world....

We do have a great country and great freedoms..along with a social welfare state..as part of our mixed free market economy where most people are pouring sources of instant gratification into their life..whether it is satellite TV..or all the sugar one can eat from the grocery store..with food stamps..and nah I do not have anything against feeding the poor and yah it's their party as far as I am concerned they can eat what eva they want...

But yah..crime rates have gone down overall ..so nah..no anarchy in sight yet..as long as heroes like Obama..and Pelosi..continue to exist..and really make things happen in the real world in real time..and yah..it ain't perfect..but at least someone IS finally slowing down the overall disaster that is health care in this country..and of course it is the democrats..as they are not bound to the rules of a fundamentalist core of followers that are still living in the dinosaur age..of knowledge..of how life really works...that is still most unfortunately the greater propensity of the Republican Party..in words and action....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Nov 2013, 9:50 am

^^^
Bump.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

27 Nov 2013, 10:59 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
Bump.


Yeah..brother.. high five!


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Nov 2013, 11:10 am

aghogday wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
Bump.


Yeah..brother.. high five!


8) 8) 8) 8) 8)


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

27 Nov 2013, 11:39 am

The Working Poor in the Repug states have it the worst:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/working-p ... 00781.html

The Repugs won't let them sign up for Medicaid. Meanwhile, the law was originally written with the assumption that such people would be permitted Medicaid.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Nov 2013, 12:11 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
The Working Poor in the Repug states have it the worst:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/working-p ... 00781.html

The Repugs won't let them sign up for Medicaid. Meanwhile, the law was originally written with the assumption that such people would be permitted Medicaid.


If they have any sense, they'll remember this when the next election rolls around.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

27 Nov 2013, 12:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
The Working Poor in the Repug states have it the worst:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/working-p ... 00781.html

The Repugs won't let them sign up for Medicaid. Meanwhile, the law was originally written with the assumption that such people would be permitted Medicaid.


If they have any sense, they'll remember this when the next election rolls around.


Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine is already in high gear. Everything bad that happens to the poor is being presented as the fault of the ACA's existence. There are already legions of people who won't get covered under the expansion that believe the Democrats are to blame, especially in Texas and Florida (the two states that would have benefitted the most).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Nov 2013, 12:49 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
The Working Poor in the Repug states have it the worst:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/working-p ... 00781.html

The Repugs won't let them sign up for Medicaid. Meanwhile, the law was originally written with the assumption that such people would be permitted Medicaid.


If they have any sense, they'll remember this when the next election rolls around.


Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine is already in high gear. Everything bad that happens to the poor is being presented as the fault of the ACA's existence. There are already legions of people who won't get covered under the expansion that believe the Democrats are to blame, especially in Texas and Florida (the two states that would have benefitted the most).


People can be their own worse enemies.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

27 Nov 2013, 1:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn


I've heard reasoning along this line and find it very naive. ALL INSURANCE works by the many carrying the weight of the few.

Risk categories were a way to save money for people by allocating people into appropriate groups, but it only magnified the problem. You got cheap rates as long as you never got sick/hurt. Once you became a "risk," you were moved into higher categories with less-affordable rates until the chronically sick were unable to afford or obtain coverage at all.

This benefited ONLY the insurance carriers who sought out HEALTHY people to insure and avoided insuring sick people.

The best "fix" to provide predictable insurance rates is to eliminate the practice of "risk groups" altogether. Yes, the healthy will pay more, but every person has NO ASSURANCE that they won't become ill in the future and need the benefit of the mass carrying their weight. More so, the FIRST TIME you have a major medical event (e.g., heart attack) you can have your hospital bill EXCEED a lifetime of health insurance premiums.

Most people don't sit down and look at the whole issue to see how this works better for everyone in the long run.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

27 Nov 2013, 1:30 pm

An interesting article:

happy about their cancelled health plans


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2013, 1:36 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It is a well established principle in insurance that the higher the risk the higher the premium. It is actuarially sound. Averaging the risk to determine a premium discriminates against low risk purchasers of the insurance.

ruveyn


I've heard reasoning along this line and find it very naive. ALL INSURANCE works by the many carrying the weight of the few.

Risk categories were a way to save money for people by allocating people into appropriate groups, but it only magnified the problem. You got cheap rates as long as you never got sick/hurt. Once you became a "risk," you were moved into higher categories with less-affordable rates until the chronically sick were unable to afford or obtain coverage at all.

This benefited ONLY the insurance carriers who sought out HEALTHY people to insure and avoided insuring sick people.

The best "fix" to provide predictable insurance rates is to eliminate the practice of "risk groups" altogether. Yes, the healthy will pay more, but every person has NO ASSURANCE that they won't become ill in the future and need the benefit of the mass carrying their weight. More so, the FIRST TIME you have a major medical event (e.g., heart attack) you can have your hospital bill EXCEED a lifetime of health insurance premiums.

Most people don't sit down and look at the whole issue to see how this works better for everyone in the long run.


One of the bad side effects of your policy is to give a free ride to smokers, boozers and overweight people. I think there should be some risk grouping. People who smoke, drink or are overweight should pay more. It is only fair.

If the system enables bad habits then sooner or later there will be more demand for medical services than can be supplied and then we will have Rationing. Just like under NHS.

ruveyn