All Forums | Politics

Healthcare bill

...

Participants:

Search

Posts: 141

Rush51

Captain

Joined: Jan, 2005

Posts: 8201

Posted: Jul. 21, 2017 - 11:49 PM ET #101

Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:

Like everybody else I have been following this and reading what people have been saying over the last 24 hours.

Is there a remotely sane person who is not already rich that thinks the Most recent proposal is a good idea? It is insane. I can not think of a more in your face middle finger given to all of America, except for the uber rich, by this administration. And they do not even bat an eye. If you are poor, sick, old, middle age, lower income, middle income, dem, Repub, etc. you will be impacted.

Nuts

Hey Matbrot, maybe you don't understand that freedom of choice is a powerful option for individuals.. Does that resonate w/ you ?

Why should I , as a healthy individual, subsidize those that are unhealthy? Do I, as a safe driver, subsidize those of others that are unsafe drivers ? *(NO)

I think you'll understand the madness once you think it through.

You 'Libs' seem to assign a special assignment when it comes to healthcare...

0

Rush51

Captain

Joined: Jan, 2005

Posts: 8201

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 12:05 AM ET #102

""""" Is there a remotely sane person who is not already rich that thinks the Most recent proposal is a good idea? """"

I think it's important to read again the words again from Matbrot. This is the same kind of class warfare that we engaged during the O'bama presidency. Tax the rich to help to help the poor.

Hell, even Lincoln will tell you that is not the route to a prosperous nation.

Matbrot, you need some education my friend...

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 10:16 AM ET #103

Do I, as a safe driver, subsidize those of others that are unsafe drivers ? *(NO)

that's actually exactly how insurance works. the good drivers subsidize the bad ones.

0

BWS77

Legend

Joined: Jan, 2010

Posts: 35347

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 11:15 AM ET #104

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

Do I, as a safe driver, subsidize those of others that are unsafe drivers ? *(NO)

that's actually exactly how insurance works. the good drivers subsidize the bad ones.

Amazing

0

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 4:52 PM ET #105

that's actually exactly how insurance works. the good drivers subsidize the bad ones.

You do understand that bad drivers pay way more? Or in some cases, cannot get insurance at all?

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 6:51 PM ET #106

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

that's actually exactly how insurance works. the good drivers subsidize the bad ones.

You do understand that bad drivers pay way more? Or in some cases, cannot get insurance at all?

i sure do. and the good drivers pay less but they still pay plenty and they don't get that money back if they never get into a crash because the insurance company puts that money into a pool (what isn't costs and profit) to pay out claims for the people who do get in accidents, which bad drivers do more than good drivers.

how do people not understand how insurance works?

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 7:15 PM ET #107

this helps explain how insurance works. it's health insurance but the fundamental principles of insurance are the same whether you are insuring your health, a car, house, etc.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/high-risk-pools-for-uninsurable-individuals/

if you don't want to read the whole thing, this sums up the issue of low risk subsidizing high risk: low risk = healthy people = good drivers. high risk = unhealthy or old people = bad drivers.

In the U.S. and other developed nations, population health care spending is highly concentrated: in any given year, the healthiest 50% of the population accounts for less than 3% of total health care expenditures, while the sickest 10% account for nearly two-thirds of population health spending (Figure 1). Private health insurance pools risks so that premiums paid by most enrollees, who have low claims costs, help pay claims for the small share of enrollees with high costs.

this is why any discussion of high risk pools always has to include what additional money will be added to the pool to pay for the high risk people. it will either come from the government or the low risk/good drivers or somewhere. otherwise, it can't work because something has to subsidize the high risk enrollees.

0

bunny651

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2009

Posts: 6677

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 7:45 PM ET #108

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

i sure do. and the good drivers pay less but they still pay plenty and they don't get that money back if they never get into a crash because the insurance company puts that money into a pool (what isn't costs and profit) to pay out claims for the people who do get in accidents, which bad drivers do more than good drivers.

how do people not understand how insurance works?

I am not sure they don't know or they just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

My question is, " If an uninsured unfortunate former healthy soul somehow got seriously ill or got into an accident, aren't we going to have to pay for it?"

0

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 7:50 PM ET #109

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

i sure do. and the good drivers pay less but they still pay plenty and they don't get that money back if they never get into a crash because the insurance company puts that money into a pool (what isn't costs and profit) to pay out claims for the people who do get in accidents, which bad drivers do more than good drivers.

how do people not understand how insurance works?

I'm sure he understands how it works. Think you miss out on his over arching point. Maybe even on purpose.

But you also cannot compare car insurance to health insurance. They are very different. For example, you are incorrect when you say the good drivers pay plenty. They don't. Some is very cheap. And plenty is relative anyway. But if someone chooses not to own a car, they don't need insurance. Even healthy people get sick though. And some are refused or pay way higher than they should because of their own actions. Some people get sick through no fault of their own. Sure the pooling scenario is okay. Like with employees at work. Or even a country. But it is theoretically leveled out. Think of it like life insurance and actuary tables, etc.

That is what I was saying about the republicans not being correct when they compare health and car insurance either. They think that having more choice and competition and being able to buy across state lines would automatically lower costs. Some studies have actually shown just the opposite.

As WSC said in a couple of his posts --- and he is correct --- healthcare is unique because of its inflation rate. No other insurance has this almost exponential factor to consider.

0

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 7:57 PM ET #110

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

this is why any discussion of high risk pools always has to include what additional money will be added to the pool to pay for the high risk people. it will either come from the government or the low risk/good drivers or somewhere. otherwise, it can't work because something has to subsidize the high risk enrollees.

I think some would counter this with: high risk eventually get left out of driving. But we as a people --- rightly so --- feel sympathetic for sick people. But we don't feel the same for dui or bad drivers. And again the costs are fairly static as with actuary tables; healthcare has proven not to be.

0

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 7:59 PM ET #111

Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

I am not sure they don't know or they just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

My question is, " If an uninsured unfortunate former healthy soul somehow got seriously ill or got into an accident, aren't we going to have to pay for it?"

Do you think we should? If so, why? If not, why not? I'm always interested in folks response to this. Because it is not as easy as it seems.

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 8:01 PM ET #112

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

I'm sure he understands how it works. Think you miss out on his over arching point. Maybe even on purpose.

But you also cannot compare car insurance to health insurance. They are very different. For example, you are incorrect when you say the good drivers pay plenty. They don't. Some is very cheap. And plenty is relative anyway. But if someone chooses not to own a car, they don't need insurance. Even healthy people get sick though. And some are refused or pay way higher than they should because of their own actions. Some people get sick through no fault of their own. Sure the pooling scenario is okay. Like with employees at work. Or even a country. But it is theoretically leveled out. Think of it like life insurance and actuary tables, etc.

That is what I was saying about the republicans not being correct when they compare health and car insurance either. They think that having more choice and competition and being able to buy across state lines would automatically lower costs. Some studies have actually shown just the opposite.

As WSC said in a couple of his posts --- and he is correct --- healthcare is unique because of its inflation rate. No other insurance has this almost exponential factor to consider.

not only can you compare auto and health insurance from an insurer's perspective, they rely on the exact same fundamental insurance concepts- again, the fundamental concepts of insurance are the same no matter what is being insured. risk is spread out by having low risk people add money to the pool so claims can be paid for the high risk people. which again, can be seen by the fact that nowhere will you see a high risk pool (i.e. a pool without low risk people in it) work without money coming from somewhere to subsidize it. if you don't have low risk people paying into the pool to subsidize high risk people, insurance fundamentally does not work.

and good drivers/healthy people pay plenty or it doesn't work. individually, they pay less but as a group, they pay a lot and that's the only way insurance works. most people don't get into a lot of accidents. that group of most people, as a group still pays a loit of insurance. that's how it works. or it doesn't work.

the basic concept of insurance is not that complicated. feel free to read the article i posted.

the rest of your post really has nothing to do with my point.

0

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

I'm sure he understands how it works. Think you miss out on his over arching point. Maybe even on purpose.

But you also cannot compare car insurance to health insurance. They are very different. For example, you are incorrect when you say the good drivers pay plenty. They don't. Some is very cheap. And plenty is relative anyway. But if someone chooses not to own a car, they don't need insurance. Even healthy people get sick though. And some are refused or pay way higher than they should because of their own actions. Some people get sick through no fault of their own. Sure the pooling scenario is okay. Like with employees at work. Or even a country. But it is theoretically leveled out. Think of it like life insurance and actuary tables, etc.

That is what I was saying about the republicans not being correct when they compare health and car insurance either. They think that having more choice and competition and being able to buy across state lines would automatically lower costs. Some studies have actually shown just the opposite.

As WSC said in a couple of his posts --- and he is correct --- healthcare is unique because of its inflation rate. No other insurance has this almost exponential factor to consider.

not only can you compare auto and health insurance from an insurer's perspective, they rely on the exact same fundamental insurance concepts- again, the fundamental concepts of insurance are the same no matter what is being insured. risk is spread out by having low risk people add money to the pool so claims can be paid for the high risk people. which again, can be seen by the fact that nowhere will you see a high risk pool (i.e. a pool without low risk people in it) work without money coming from somewhere to subsidize it. if you don't have low risk people paying into the pool to subsidize high risk people, insurance fundamentally does not work.

and good drivers/healthy people pay plenty or it doesn't work. individually, they pay less but as a group, they pay a lot and that's the only way insurance works. most people don't get into a lot of accidents. that group of most people, as a group still pays a loit of insurance. that's how it works. or it doesn't work.

the basic concept of insurance is not that complicated. feel free to read the article i posted.

the rest of your post really has nothing to do with my point.

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 8:44 PM ET #113

Gotcha. You are addressing it from insurers side. Thought you were talking to fellow from consumer side. Absolutely from insurers side it's got to be level. From a consumer side absolutely not at all. But pretty sure he was talking about the consumer side. But obviously with car insurance the high risk pay more than the low risk. Health insurance is differnt in that regard. Same with life insurance or property insurance. You are correct, in that it would not work otherwise.

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 22, 2017 - 8:52 PM ET #114

i think i took the thread on a bit of a tangent.

the main thing i know about health insurance from the consumer side is i pay too much and have for as long as i can remember. my biggest fear from the consumer side is i've paid so f*cking much in premiums over the years and maybe i won't be covered or fully covered one day.

that's got to be brutal when it happens to people.

0

skoda

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 2160

Posted: Jul. 23, 2017 - 3:40 AM ET #115

How did insurance companies cover their costs when there were no co-pays/deductibles/out of pocket for insured......

Most conservatives have been keying on the implication of this New York Times article that Obamacare is, too, all about “redistribution of wealth.” (You can’t redistribute wealth, but that’s another issue.) Uh-huh, uh-huh, sure enough. All about “redistribution” of wealth.

Layman's terms key in....... What The Health

0

Europa

Legend

Joined: Dec, 2003

Posts: 41287

Posted: Jul. 25, 2017 - 1:11 AM ET #116

Again, in Tuesday Mitch McConnell and GOP Senators are trying to squeeze in a 17% nation support Health Bill. I am not sure McConnell will get 50 "yes" but definitively this bill will hurt GOP's constituents pretty bad as well as others.

0

skoda

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 2160

Posted: Jul. 25, 2017 - 8:46 AM ET #117

Most of those in Washington have been for 20 plus years telling everyone they are there for you,,,,,,,,,

If it was you; why did Maxine Waters paid her daughter $600,000 since 2006, campaign dollars? Calling whoever a racist and she lives in a richest/whitest community's in LA. This is the latest and we've seen many before doing same and will see a few more resigning before we see them in cuffs so........

Back to 1st sentence Draining Da Swamp is the only answer and Trump needs your help doing-it! Starting with You voting all of them out... 2 term limit needs to become law not 2 decades

0

thirdperson

Captain

Joined: Feb, 2005

Posts: 7309

Posted: Jul. 25, 2017 - 9:53 AM ET #118

Commonwealth fund assess world healthcare systems based on efficiency, access, equity, quality of care and healthy lives. Problem is that Trumpcare and the old healthcare system are worser than Obamacare.

Benefits outweigh costs under Obamacare. The number of uninsured who become insured exceed the number of high earners who pay over 10% of income for insurance. Best solution is to fix Obamacare by subsidizing those who overpay.

0

skoda

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 2160

Posted: Jul. 25, 2017 - 10:28 AM ET #119

No solution it is/was all smoke and mirrors. No-one should pay their premiums or just pay the premium and send in an extra $10 a month if you start using. Government workers pay 25% of their coverage and the taxpayer pays the rest. It's called a benefit if you work for the Gee-Man if you receive money and not work for the Government it's called a Subsidy?? Both are paid with our taxes???

0

LVTruck

Legend

Joined: Mar, 2011

Posts: 31336

Posted: Jul. 26, 2017 - 9:43 AM ET #120

Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan.....

0

ClubDirt

Hall of Fame

Joined: May, 2003

Posts: 28196

Posted: Jul. 26, 2017 - 10:08 AM ET #121

Quote Originally Posted by LVTruck:

Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan.....

i'm sure he'll make it up them and make them big winners in his upcoming tax plan tho.

0

Europa

Legend

Joined: Dec, 2003

Posts: 41287

Posted: Jul. 26, 2017 - 11:40 AM ET #122

Quote Originally Posted by LVTruck:

Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan.....

This morning, GOP Senators are trying to jam in the Repeal ACA only Bill. This Bill will hurt more Trump voters as well as others if McConnell and the company pass it.

0

Europa

Legend

Joined: Dec, 2003

Posts: 41287

Posted: Jul. 27, 2017 - 1:22 AM ET #123

GOP Senators could not jam in the Repeal and Replace ACA last night, also failed to pass the Replace ACA ONLY. John McCain is among the seven GOP Senators to vote "NO". Mitch McConnell has other option for the Trumpcare: skinny Replace ACA, but this skinny option could wreck the insurance market and jack up premium by 20%, according to CNN Money. And it would toss out 16 millions people from health insurance, CNBC says.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/news/economy/senate-obamacare-skinny-repeal/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/26/skinny-obamacare-repeal-may-leave-16-million-more-uninsured-cbo-estimates.html

0

mattbrot

Captain

Joined: Jan, 2005

Posts: 6840

Posted: Jul. 27, 2017 - 1:28 PM ET #124

Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:

Hey Matbrot, maybe you don't understand that freedom of choice is a powerful option for individuals.. Does that resonate w/ you ?

Why should I , as a healthy individual, subsidize those that are unhealthy? Do I, as a safe driver, subsidize those of others that are unsafe drivers ? *(NO)

I think you'll understand the madness once you think it through.

You 'Libs' seem to assign a special assignment when it comes to healthcare...

There are some very very serious flaws in this response. It is a very very poorly conceived and ignorant view. I would go into it in depth but it looks like many of the responses on this page after your post spells it out.

0

Raiders22

Hall of Fame

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 25456

Posted: Jul. 27, 2017 - 10:37 PM ET #125

Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:

There are some very very serious flaws in this response. It is a very very poorly conceived and ignorant view. I would go into it in depth but...

I would be interested...

0

All Forums | Politics

About Us

Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials

Betting Guides

Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming

Sports Betting

US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps

Contests

Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools

The Covers community has

618,670

lifetime members worldwide

Join our community today

Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.

Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service

Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.

Healthcare bill

Hot Forum Topics