Page 4 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Jul 2012, 11:03 pm

There are no guarantees. But if you sell it better than your opponent demonizes it, you win that point. And it depends on the state. Places like Texas have 25% uninsured. Mississippi 22%. In a tight race a pollster might tell you it will help.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Jul 2012, 11:56 pm

There are Republicans governors who have vowed never to allow Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act to be instituted in their states. Much like Arizona for years had not allowed Medicare to dig its heels into their state - until hospitals there found it impossible to continue operating as late as 1972.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Jul 2012, 2:11 pm

Yeah, the hospitals will lobby for it and are doing so. They want to get paid. It won't just be poor people asking. In Florida, where the governor just said he won't take the money, the uninsured rate is 21%. One of the worst. The governor is just one part of the process and the state legislature is saying they'll think about it.

In addition to the benefit of getting $9 for every $1 you spend, there is the economic side-effect. People going to see doctors for preventative care who were not doing so previously. That's jobs, taxes, etc. Billions of dollars worth of activity. States like that too. Plus more compensated care = lower insurance premiums, or at least slower growth. Always nice to tell voters that you helped out their wallets.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jul 2012, 3:41 pm

simon_says wrote:
Yeah, the hospitals will lobby for it and are doing so. They want to get paid. It won't just be poor people asking. In Florida, where the governor just said he won't take the money, the uninsured rate is 21%. One of the worst. The governor is just one part of the process and the state legislature is saying they'll think about it.

In addition to the benefit of getting $9 for every $1 you spend, there is the economic side-effect. People going to see doctors for preventative care who were not doing so previously. That's jobs, taxes, etc. Billions of dollars worth of activity. States like that too. Plus more compensated care = lower insurance premiums, or at least slower growth. Always nice to tell voters that you helped out their wallets.


The governor of Florida is a swindler whose medical company had been fined for ripping off Medicare and their customers of billions. I was stupefied that the people of Florida would elect this flimflam man.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2012, 4:56 pm

Actually, the ACA is brilliant. It has delivered the entire health care system into private hands in the least competitive manner possible. I am sure the far right types only pretended to object to this abomination.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jul 2012, 9:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... -citizens/

Forbes is not exactly an ultra-liberal media outlet, by the way.

Therefore, what is the real story on Obamacare? As usual, the Republicans have been lying to you in a massive way.


One definitely good thing about the act was the elimination of the existing precondition dodge.

ruveyn


You DO have a bit of a liberal streak, don't you?

Gouging when you can is what free enterprise is all about.

You must have a pink handkerchief tucked away somewhere.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jul 2012, 9:37 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... -citizens/

Forbes is not exactly an ultra-liberal media outlet, by the way.

Therefore, what is the real story on Obamacare? As usual, the Republicans have been lying to you in a massive way.


One definitely good thing about the act was the elimination of the existing precondition dodge.

ruveyn


You DO have a bit of a liberal streak, don't you?

Gouging when you can is what free enterprise is all about.

You must have a pink handkerchief tucked away somewhere.


I can not believe that there were - and probably still are - people who defended denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Talk about being born without a soul.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2012, 8:23 am

ArrantPariah wrote:

You DO have a bit of a liberal streak, don't you?

Gouging when you can is what free enterprise is all about.

You must have a pink handkerchief tucked away somewhere.


Not particularly. I do know the difference between fair and unfair though.

I prefer Justice to Mercy. That definitely excludes me from the Liberal Camp.

F*ck Mercy.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2012, 8:28 am

The pro-corporate lick-spittles and running dogs have done a masterful job of pretending to curse Obama Care. Obama Care will eventually deliver the medical care system into the hands of irresponsible subsidized corporate providers of both care and insurance. Think of it as Socialized Medicine From Hell. It has all of the evil aspects of a government monopoly and virtually non of the virtues of privately provided services and goods. Adam Smith must be whirling in his grave at 2400 rpm.

Obama has deceived the entire nation. What a con man he is. And he will probably get another 4 years to pluck us as naked as j-birds.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

09 Jul 2012, 8:48 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I can not believe that there were - and probably still are - people who defended denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Talk about being born without a soul.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Insurance is all about pooling risk.

If I am 100 years old, obese, have incredibly high blood pressure, have terminal cancer, can't walk, etc., then who would want to sell me either a fixed rate 30-year term life insurance policy, or health insurance with coverage for pre-existing conditions?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

09 Jul 2012, 8:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:

You DO have a bit of a liberal streak, don't you?

Gouging when you can is what free enterprise is all about.

You must have a pink handkerchief tucked away somewhere.


Not particularly. I do know the difference between fair and unfair though.

I prefer Justice to Mercy. That definitely excludes me from the Liberal Camp.

F*ck Mercy.

ruveyn


Forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is unjust to the company (and to policy holders who do not suffer from pre-existing conditions, and whose rates might otherwise be lower), but it is merciful to patients with pre-existing conditions.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jul 2012, 11:08 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:

You DO have a bit of a liberal streak, don't you?

Gouging when you can is what free enterprise is all about.

You must have a pink handkerchief tucked away somewhere.


Not particularly. I do know the difference between fair and unfair though.

I prefer Justice to Mercy. That definitely excludes me from the Liberal Camp.

F*ck Mercy.

ruveyn


Forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is unjust to the company (and to policy holders who do not suffer from pre-existing conditions, and whose rates might otherwise be lower), but it is merciful to patients with pre-existing conditions.


HURRAY FOR MERCY!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2012, 1:11 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
s

Forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is unjust to the company (and to policy holders who do not suffer from pre-existing conditions, and whose rates might otherwise be lower), but it is merciful to patients with pre-existing conditions.


It is a simple statistical problem to calibrate the premium to the risk.

Any licensed actuary could do it.

Justice demands that the risk and the premium be co-measurable.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2012, 4:31 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
]

Forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is unjust to the company (and to policy holders who do not suffer from pre-existing conditions, and whose rates might otherwise be lower), but it is merciful to patients with pre-existing conditions.


The premiums show be matched with the risks. Smokers should pay more than non-smokers and overweight folk should pay more than the lighter one. BMI is the best measure to use to determine this. Drinkers should pay more than non-drinkers. Vegetarians should pay more than meat eaters. People in dangerous occupations should pay more than people in safer occupations. Older people should pay more than younger people. The closer to death one is, the more he should pay. The higher the risk the higher the premium.

But people should not be refused insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

ruveyn



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

09 Jul 2012, 4:45 pm

And if they get their actuarial math wrong for enough customers, people get refunded. That's another good thing.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jul 2012, 5:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
]

Forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is unjust to the company (and to policy holders who do not suffer from pre-existing conditions, and whose rates might otherwise be lower), but it is merciful to patients with pre-existing conditions.


The premiums show be matched with the risks. Smokers should pay more than non-smokers and overweight folk should pay more than the lighter one. BMI is the best measure to use to determine this. Drinkers should pay more than non-drinkers. Vegetarians should pay more than meat eaters. People in dangerous occupations should pay more than people in safer occupations. Older people should pay more than younger people. The closer to death one is, the more he should pay. The higher the risk the higher the premium.

But people should not be refused insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

ruveyn


Who would have guessed it - - the one person in the universe who agrees with me that meat eaters are healthier than vegetarians is you, ruveyn! 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer