Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge (Unconstitutional), Raising Insurance Uncertainty

a reply to: Extorris

Strange that you would claim I was saying that when that is not what I was saying?

Strange that you would claim the other poster was saying something when that was not what he was saying?

You just called mo out for arguing against the thing you are calling me out for.

ThRedneck

a reply to: Extorris

That is a fallacious argument.

It is not a binary, either/or choice between strangers and your family.

Your tax dollars are spent protecting strangers every minute of every day in the form of Police, Fire and Military protection among other things.

That does not mean that you prioritize the safety of strangers above your own.

You do realize you just tried to refute my argument with my argument? No, of course you don't...

The dishonesty of the argument begins with the assumption the choice is binary.

I am glad you finally see the dishonesty in your argument.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you think we should treat someone who smoked and got lung cancer the same as someone who simply got unlucky with a genetic predisposition?

No. Do you think they should be denied medical coverage completely?

What exactly is it that your arguing in favor of?

An individual with a pre-existing condition should be covered and others should pay for that individual's premiums if that individual cannot afford it?

Or that individuals should be provided full medical coverage regardless of a pre-existing condition and it should be provided at an affordable rate?

You can buy any insurance you want. You just have to pay for it.

a reply to: Outlier13

What exactly is it that your arguing in favor of?

Regulation preventing insurance carriers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

You can buy any insurance you want. You just have to pay for it.

Not true. Prior to the ACA people with pre-existing conditions could be, and were, denied medical insurance.

a reply to: Phage

Regulation preventing insurance carriers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

And exactly what good will that do? Insurers operate for profit, so if you are going to need $1 worth of care under their plans, you will pay more than $1 on average.

Are you asking for people to have to not buy insurance because they don't have enough money?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And exactly what good will that do? Insurers operate for profit, so if you are going to need $1 worth of care under their plans, you will pay more than $1 on average.

That's not the way insurance works, actually. The way it works is that costs, from the carrier's point of view are distributed across all subscribers. That $1 is paid by a lot of people. Also, premiums are not the only source of revenue for insurance carriers.

Are you asking for people to have to not buy insurance because they don't have enough money?

No.

a reply to: Phage

That's not the way insurance works, actually. The way it works is that costs, from the carrier's point of view are distributed across all subscribers. That $1 is paid by a lot of people. Also, premiums are not the only source of revenue for insurance carriers.

It's pretty close.

In order to spread the risk among a group of people, some in that group must have costs lower than the premium while others may have costs higher than the premiums. That average cost, the average payout, is how premiums are determined, after adding in for operating expenses and profit. There's no magic here. If there are 10 people in the group,and the company pays out $10,000 a year in expenses, the average cost is $1000. So everyone will pay that $1000, plus operating costs and expenses, for the year. That includes the guy who needed $5000 worth of care and the people who only used $50 in claims.

As to other ways to make profit, if they can't make a profit on the insurance itself, they won't offer the insurance.

One cannot reduce costs by introducing middlemen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So everyone will pay that $1000, plus operating costs and expenses, for the year.

Sort of. So, out of that $1 more in your medical premium, what do those 10 people pay? Ten cents, right?

Remember?

so if you are going to need $1 worth of care under their plans, you will pay more than $1 on average.

As to other ways to make profit, if they can't make a profit on the insurance itself, they won't offer the insurance.

Right. But that's not relevant to your point.

One cannot reduce costs by introducing middlemen.

Not necessarily. If that middleman serves as a broker, provider costs can actually be reduced. Cheaper By the Dozen, doncha know. Too bad the current administration refused to let medicare negotiate drug prices.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Sort of. So, out of that $1 more in your medical premium, what do those 10 people pay? Ten cents, right?

No. You're trying to mix two examples together.

If the average cost is $1, people will pay more than $1. If the average cost is $1000, people will pay more than $1000. Pick an example. This ain't no mix-n-match deal.

But that's not relevant to your point.

No, it's relevant to your point. That's why it's a reply.

Cheaper By the Dozen, doncha know.

You're talking about the economy of scale. That applies to manufacturing or franchises that consolidate expenses. Insurance pays doctors; that's what they do. Their ability to decide what a doctor charges is limited. Some companies manage to set up networks of doctors who have agreed to price cuts.

Still, I have gone to doctors whose office will automatically cut the cost for someone who is uninsured and pays with cash. The last time, a procedure estimated to run $120-$150 cost me $50 cash. They'd rather have cash paid at time of service than to try and collect.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

What exactly is it that your arguing in favor of?

Regulation preventing insurance carriers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

You can buy any insurance you want. You just have to pay for it.

Not true. Prior to the ACA people with pre-existing conditions could be, and were, denied medical insurance.

You don't understand how health insurance works. I'll say it one last time. You can go out tomorrow and buy ANY HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

What you are arguing for is socialized medicine and if you ever thought Obama care was nothing more than the largest tax bill in history then you are blind.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

sorry romney lost . his healthcare failed . no republican votes . Wake up . Both parties suck and do not care about you.

This can has been kicked down road for more than 30 years, guess what? the end of the road is nearly here and it ain't pretty.

There are embedded exponential costs that will make government debt explode around if not before 2024 raising interest rates 10% or more in response to borrowing (printing) to cover debt.

In articles I've read markets will respond prior to that by crashing possibly to 10% of today's value.

We sit back and allow that to happen and better than 100 million could lose everything they have.

We had relatively minor uptick in interest rate other day and look how it roiled markets - now imagine significant and long running raises in the rate.

All because we like kicking cans better than true fixes to our issues.

The basic fundamentals of health care needs to be changed. The inflated insurance system does not work for any kind of socialized medicine program, it will bankrupt the country.

It the end of the day we are talking roughly less than 10% of US population that falls into a bucket of no healthcare. The vast majority get it from work. At my work it is free for me and about 250 bucks per month for the whole family if I choose that. My company uses blue cross blue shield, but pays directly with no insurance middle man.

In many countries they have cash only clinics that are cheap and could handle most of the healthcare needs. I took my son to one in Texas when he got Pink Eye on a holiday weekend...it was there or the ER and we all know what the ER is like in Texas. So I go there and in 10 mins I see a nurse with a doctor on call and paid 20 bucks with the prescription, that is what we need for much of our care.

One big problem is young people don't want to pay anything since they are healthy and we saw how that affected ACA. You need all those healthy people paying in and never use it to pay for the sick people who use it a lot. I don't think America is ready for that even though those same young people who do not want to pay for the old people still scream HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!!

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's because those same people who are crying for "HEALTH CARE FOR ALL" are using code. It's not health care for all they want... it's free healthcare for them. Everyone else can go suck on a lemon.

Once you realize that, everything else makes sense.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero

That's because those same people who are crying for "HEALTH CARE FOR ALL" are using code. It's not health care for all they want... it's free healthcare for them. Everyone else can go suck on a lemon.

Once you realize that, everything else makes sense.

TheRedneck

Kind of like "Progressive"

I TMed the term "Game Reset" dealing with the latest generations. They are use to playing a game where everyone starts out at level 1 and they see life where they are level 1 and older people are level 60 and they see that as unfair and so want the game reset so everyone is level 1...its only fair...lol

February 1, 2019

Surprise WIN for the Trump Administration today. A Maryland Judge throws out Maryland's lawsuit to Protect ObamaCare, and to make Matthew Whitaker's appointment as Assistant Attorney General unconstitutional.

Source - www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
February 1, 2019

Surprise WIN for the Trump Administration today. A Maryland Judge throws out Maryland's lawsuit to Protect ObamaCare, and to make Matthew Whitaker's appointment as Assistant Attorney General unconstitutional.

Source - www.reuters.com...

ROFLOL 🤣