Democratic Primary Push for White House

[BaltimoreSkins]

Schneed,

I heard that one of the other issues was that the federal government and insurance providers genuinely were unaware of exactly how unhealthy uninsured American are I am assuming there is truth to that?

It also sounds like you are saying that as long as we do things half assed and have uninsured people we will be stuck with a shitty system.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This thread has plenty of shots being taken, some humorous, some trifling, but in an effort to actually have meaningful discussion in here, I'll try to touch on why Chico's right that this won't work (even though he probably has no idea why it won't work). Sorry Chico, had to take a trifling shot in the spirit of the thread.

With Obamacare, the exchanges gave people an option they could choose to gain coverage, sometimes with subsidies, for cheaper rates than they could otherwise find on the market. The penalty for not having some form of coverage was a tax penalty. It was a good idea in theory but the costs of the plans offered on the exchanges skyrocketed after a few years, and many insurers pulled out of the exchanges altogether because they grew unprofitable. Why?

Think through the types of people who might be interested in signing up for the plans on the exchanges. To keep it simple for illustrative purposes, I'll bucket everyone into two groups:

- The healthy that didn't have insurance before
- The unhealthy that didn't have insurance before

The healthy folks looked at the cost of the plans on the exchanges, and they weighed it against the cost of paying the tax penalty for not having the insurance. They said hey, I never use the doctor or the hospital, I don't get sick, I'm good. While maybe not the most forward-thinking view, they determined it was cheaper and better for them to just pay the tax penalty.

Meanwhile, the unhealthy folks who used the doctor and the hospital and the pharmacy, they've been struggling to pay for their healthcare and they viewed the exchanges as a godsend. They rejoiced, FINALLY MORE AFFORDABLE INSURANCE, and they jumped at the chance to sign up for the exchanges. For them, the cost of paying the premiums for the exchange plan was pennies in comparison to paying the tax penalty plus the cost of paying for doctors and medicines out of pocket. So they signed up right away.

So now think about those two groups of people from the insurance plan's perspective. The plan goes: hey we just got a whole bunch of people signing up who need healthcare services. They're going to the doctor, they're getting prescriptions, they're at the hospital, and now we have to pay for those claims. Meanwhile, we didn't have as many of the healthy folks signing up as we thought we might. So we don't have them paying premiums into the plan. Insurers love healthy people who pay premiums into the plan - they collect the premium and they never have to pay for healthcare claims.

You can see. That's a mix destined for failure. It's a heavy mix of high-cost patients rushing into the plan, and not enough premium revenue coming in from healthier people. The plan can't sustain itself, insurers say hey we either need to double the premiums or we need to exit this market.

Failure.

The failure occurred because the healthy people weren't incentivized enough to sign up for the plan. Either the tax penalty needed to be more severe, severe enough to make them say hey signing up for the plan is actually cheaper. Or the law needed to just say you have to get insurance or criminal charges of some kind.

The idea was fine but the execution wasn't there.

Similar situation here with Warren. If she gives people the choice of whether to sign up for Medicare For All, she better make sure there are some nasty incentives to make people do it. Otherwise the sick will sign up, and the healthy won't, and this time instead of insurers failing and bailing on the exchanges, Medicare will fail and destroy our safety net.

Her plan carries immense risk, far more risk than Obamacare did. She'd be better off revisiting Obamacare and tweaking the law. But that horse is likely out of the barn, politically.

I'm a financial executive who works for a healthcare provider. My views expressed here are my own and should not in any way be viewed as representative of the views of my employer, who shall remain nameless in these forums.

perfect...AND shot taken!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Joe Biden will try anything to bring down Trump.

I thought the guy definitely looked similar to Biden too.

Also Schneed, that's probably the best argument I've ever heard against Medicare-for-all. +1 for bringing a well thought-out argument to the table.

Things that need fixing:

Price gouging on life-saving medications like Epipens. Companies should have to provide justification if they are going to jack up the rate on anything over a certain percent (like the 5000% price increases which have become more common in the last decade or so)

People filing for medical bankruptcy after sustaining a major injury. Is it fair that someone should die or be bankrupt for the rest of their life because of an accident that may or may not have been their fault? Just to clarify on this as well, I'm not advocating for someone with no insurance who gets into an accident that is their fault. I'm advocating for people who have insurance who get into accidents that aren't their fault and end up in medical bankruptcy because they'll never be able to afford to pay off their medical bills in their lifetime.

I could get into it about how a system that values profit over human life is broken but I also recognize that on this board, with this audience, it's most likely going to be unpopular.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This thread has plenty of shots being taken, some humorous, some trifling, but in an effort to actually have meaningful discussion in here, I'll try to touch on why Chico's right that this won't work (even though he probably has no idea why it won't work). Sorry Chico, had to take a trifling shot in the spirit of the thread.

With Obamacare, the exchanges gave people an option they could choose to gain coverage, sometimes with subsidies, for cheaper rates than they could otherwise find on the market. The penalty for not having some form of coverage was a tax penalty. It was a good idea in theory but the costs of the plans offered on the exchanges skyrocketed after a few years, and many insurers pulled out of the exchanges altogether because they grew unprofitable. Why?

Think through the types of people who might be interested in signing up for the plans on the exchanges. To keep it simple for illustrative purposes, I'll bucket everyone into two groups:

- The healthy that didn't have insurance before
- The unhealthy that didn't have insurance before

The healthy folks looked at the cost of the plans on the exchanges, and they weighed it against the cost of paying the tax penalty for not having the insurance. They said hey, I never use the doctor or the hospital, I don't get sick, I'm good. While maybe not the most forward-thinking view, they determined it was cheaper and better for them to just pay the tax penalty.

Meanwhile, the unhealthy folks who used the doctor and the hospital and the pharmacy, they've been struggling to pay for their healthcare and they viewed the exchanges as a godsend. They rejoiced, FINALLY MORE AFFORDABLE INSURANCE, and they jumped at the chance to sign up for the exchanges. For them, the cost of paying the premiums for the exchange plan was pennies in comparison to paying the tax penalty plus the cost of paying for doctors and medicines out of pocket. So they signed up right away.

So now think about those two groups of people from the insurance plan's perspective. The plan goes: hey we just got a whole bunch of people signing up who need healthcare services. They're going to the doctor, they're getting prescriptions, they're at the hospital, and now we have to pay for those claims. Meanwhile, we didn't have as many of the healthy folks signing up as we thought we might. So we don't have them paying premiums into the plan. Insurers love healthy people who pay premiums into the plan - they collect the premium and they never have to pay for healthcare claims.

You can see. That's a mix destined for failure. It's a heavy mix of high-cost patients rushing into the plan, and not enough premium revenue coming in from healthier people. The plan can't sustain itself, insurers say hey we either need to double the premiums or we need to exit this market.

Failure.

The failure occurred because the healthy people weren't incentivized enough to sign up for the plan. Either the tax penalty needed to be more severe, severe enough to make them say hey signing up for the plan is actually cheaper. Or the law needed to just say you have to get insurance or criminal charges of some kind.

The idea was fine but the execution wasn't there.

Similar situation here with Warren. If she gives people the choice of whether to sign up for Medicare For All, she better make sure there are some nasty incentives to make people do it. Otherwise the sick will sign up, and the healthy won't, and this time instead of insurers failing and bailing on the exchanges, Medicare will fail and destroy our safety net.

Her plan carries immense risk, far more risk than Obamacare did. She'd be better off revisiting Obamacare and tweaking the law. But that horse is likely out of the barn, politically.

I'm a financial executive who works for a healthcare provider. My views expressed here are my own and should not in any way be viewed as representative of the views of my employer, who shall remain nameless in these forums.

So basically all of these healthcare plans depend on the black mailing of healthy tax payers being forced to buy something they don't want or need? Yeah, that doesn't sound like something we should support our government doing.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

So basically all of these healthcare plans depend on the black mailing of healthy tax payers being forced to buy something they don't want or need? Yeah, that doesn't sound like something we should support our government doing.

Nobody wants or needs health insurance until they actually need it.

Imagine a world where I can get into an accident and only then I have to buy health insurance to pay for my injuries. I like it!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This thread has plenty of shots being taken, some humorous, some trifling, but in an effort to actually have meaningful discussion in here, I'll try to touch on why Chico's right that this won't work (even though he probably has no idea why it won't work). Sorry Chico, had to take a trifling shot in the spirit of the thread.

With Obamacare, the exchanges gave people an option they could choose to gain coverage, sometimes with subsidies, for cheaper rates than they could otherwise find on the market. The penalty for not having some form of coverage was a tax penalty. It was a good idea in theory but the costs of the plans offered on the exchanges skyrocketed after a few years, and many insurers pulled out of the exchanges altogether because they grew unprofitable. Why?

Think through the types of people who might be interested in signing up for the plans on the exchanges. To keep it simple for illustrative purposes, I'll bucket everyone into two groups:

- The healthy that didn't have insurance before
- The unhealthy that didn't have insurance before

The healthy folks looked at the cost of the plans on the exchanges, and they weighed it against the cost of paying the tax penalty for not having the insurance. They said hey, I never use the doctor or the hospital, I don't get sick, I'm good. While maybe not the most forward-thinking view, they determined it was cheaper and better for them to just pay the tax penalty.

Meanwhile, the unhealthy folks who used the doctor and the hospital and the pharmacy, they've been struggling to pay for their healthcare and they viewed the exchanges as a godsend. They rejoiced, FINALLY MORE AFFORDABLE INSURANCE, and they jumped at the chance to sign up for the exchanges. For them, the cost of paying the premiums for the exchange plan was pennies in comparison to paying the tax penalty plus the cost of paying for doctors and medicines out of pocket. So they signed up right away.

So now think about those two groups of people from the insurance plan's perspective. The plan goes: hey we just got a whole bunch of people signing up who need healthcare services. They're going to the doctor, they're getting prescriptions, they're at the hospital, and now we have to pay for those claims. Meanwhile, we didn't have as many of the healthy folks signing up as we thought we might. So we don't have them paying premiums into the plan. Insurers love healthy people who pay premiums into the plan - they collect the premium and they never have to pay for healthcare claims.

You can see. That's a mix destined for failure. It's a heavy mix of high-cost patients rushing into the plan, and not enough premium revenue coming in from healthier people. The plan can't sustain itself, insurers say hey we either need to double the premiums or we need to exit this market.

Failure.

The failure occurred because the healthy people weren't incentivized enough to sign up for the plan. Either the tax penalty needed to be more severe, severe enough to make them say hey signing up for the plan is actually cheaper. Or the law needed to just say you have to get insurance or criminal charges of some kind.

The idea was fine but the execution wasn't there.

Similar situation here with Warren. If she gives people the choice of whether to sign up for Medicare For All, she better make sure there are some nasty incentives to make people do it. Otherwise the sick will sign up, and the healthy won't, and this time instead of insurers failing and bailing on the exchanges, Medicare will fail and destroy our safety net.

Her plan carries immense risk, far more risk than Obamacare did. She'd be better off revisiting Obamacare and tweaking the law. But that horse is likely out of the barn, politically.

I'm a financial executive who works for a healthcare provider. My views expressed here are my own and should not in any way be viewed as representative of the views of my employer, who shall remain nameless in these forums.

I agree with you !


Second I think this is the way to go.............


"................. far more risk than Obamacare did. She'd be better off revisiting Obamacare and tweaking the law. But that horse is likely out of the barn, politically."

It shouldn't be and trump has chopped it up enough were people don't give a crap about it but the general idea of Obamacare was good the law definitely need to be twerk ,it wouldn't have taken much but republican law makers were never going to fix it Mitch said as much,that made to much sense.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

So basically all of these healthcare plans depend on the black mailing of healthy tax payers being forced to buy something they don't want or need? Yeah, that doesn't sound like something we should support our government doing.

Do you have any idea on how Insurance works?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

I thought the guy definitely looked similar to Biden too.

Also Schneed, that's probably the best argument I've ever heard against Medicare-for-all. +1 for bringing a well thought-out argument to the table.

Things that need fixing:

Price gouging on life-saving medications like Epipens. Companies should have to provide justification if they are going to jack up the rate on anything over a certain percent (like the 5000% price increases which have become more common in the last decade or so)

People filing for medical bankruptcy after sustaining a major injury. Is it fair that someone should die or be bankrupt for the rest of their life because of an accident that may or may not have been their fault? Just to clarify on this as well, I'm not advocating for someone with no insurance who gets into an accident that is their fault. I'm advocating for people who have insurance who get into accidents that aren't their fault and end up in medical bankruptcy because they'll never be able to afford to pay off their medical bills in their lifetime.

I could get into it about how a system that values profit over human life is broken but I also recognize that on this board, with this audience, it's most likely going to be unpopular.

That did make me laugh.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

Nobody wants or needs health insurance until they actually need it.

Imagine a world where I can get into an accident and only then I have to buy health insurance to pay for my injuries. I like it!

Insurance is a legalize Ponzi scheme.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Schneed,

I heard that one of the other issues was that the federal government and insurance providers genuinely were unaware of exactly how unhealthy uninsured American are I am assuming there is truth to that?

It also sounds like you are saying that as long as we do things half assed and have uninsured people we will be stuck with a shitty system.

Yes, there is truth to that. And they should have anticipated it, frankly. They should have realized that as soon as you offer people the chance to get their healthcare more affordably, those that NEED healthcare would be the first ones to jump at it. Those who needed it most were sick, quite sick.

And yes, I'd agree. You either need to go all the way, true single payer, no choices, we're all in it by law. Or you need to go all the other way, laissez-faire, no government intervention, let folks sink or swim, if the sick can't afford their health insurance they should get a f'n job and pay for it.

In the words of everyone's favorite sensei, Mr. Miyagi, "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, get squish just like grape."

Which side of the street you fall upon largely depends on your view on individual responsibility to the shared collective. Some might say we all have a responsibility to one another to fully share the risk, and thus single payer is the only fair solution. Others might say we have no such obligation, my only obligation is to myself and my family, beyond that I'll decide who I want to help. And still others might say it doesn't matter what system you set up, Americans will continue to be unhealthy and overuse healthcare services until they take an ownership in their own wellness, so why should we prop up those who continue to make shitty life choices?

This is a difficult issue that, if you're capable of boiling it down, causes people to reflect on how far they're willing to go to help their fellow man. And even if they're willing, will it actually work?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

I thought the guy definitely looked similar to Biden too.

Also Schneed, that's probably the best argument I've ever heard against Medicare-for-all. +1 for bringing a well thought-out argument to the table.

Things that need fixing:

Price gouging on life-saving medications like Epipens. Companies should have to provide justification if they are going to jack up the rate on anything over a certain percent (like the 5000% price increases which have become more common in the last decade or so)

People filing for medical bankruptcy after sustaining a major injury. Is it fair that someone should die or be bankrupt for the rest of their life because of an accident that may or may not have been their fault? Just to clarify on this as well, I'm not advocating for someone with no insurance who gets into an accident that is their fault. I'm advocating for people who have insurance who get into accidents that aren't their fault and end up in medical bankruptcy because they'll never be able to afford to pay off their medical bills in their lifetime.

I could get into it about how a system that values profit over human life is broken but I also recognize that on this board, with this audience, it's most likely going to be unpopular.

Agree on price gouging with medicines. Seems like this could be prevented by allowing the original patent-holder for a drug to collect royalties on any generic versions that are sold after the five-year patent expires. You wouldn't need to jack prices up if you knew a drug you developed would continue driving an income stream after the first five years.

And agree on your point about minimum levels of coverage. The lowest level of coverage should definitely cover the costs of catastrophic events. If you get your insurance from an employer, and it doesn't cover to that level, that should not be permissible in my opinion.

If you bought it on the market yourself though, you should have known that's what you're buying. It's like if I buy only $100K of term life insurance coverage and when I die my wife and two girls are like shit this isn't enough, that's my wife's and my fault.

But plans offered through employers should definitely cover those things. The minimum essential coverage clause in Obamacare went a long way to helping with this but probably still need a bit more teeth.

[Chico23231]

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Says U.S. Not an ‘Advanced Society’ at Bernie Rally: ‘It Is Fascism

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alexandr...it-is-fascism/

she doesn’t know what fascism means and she completely ignores the fact she went from a bartender to in Congress as a young, minority woman.

Because other fascist regimes this happened all the time.

Her and Bernie aren’t just socialist but Marxist with a soft spot for communism.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Says U.S. Not an ‘Advanced Society’ at Bernie Rally: ‘It Is Fascism

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alexandr...it-is-fascism/

she doesn’t know what fascism means and she completely ignores the fact she went from a bartender to in Congress as a young, minority woman.

Because other fascist regimes this happened all the time.

Her and Bernie aren’t just socialist but Marxist with a soft spot for communism.

It's a shame you don't know what half the words you use mean.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Says U.S. Not an ‘Advanced Society’ at Bernie Rally: ‘It Is Fascism

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alexandr...it-is-fascism/

she doesn’t know what fascism means and she completely ignores the fact she went from a bartender to in Congress as a young, minority woman.

Because other fascist regimes this happened all the time.

Her and Bernie aren’t just socialist but Marxist with a soft spot for communism.

She bumped Maxine Waters out of the spotlight as the Democrat's minority woman who spews unfounded nonsense like a carnival barker with a bullhorn.
She has replaced Crazy Maxine filling that needed role in the Democrat party.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agree on price gouging with medicines. Seems like this could be prevented by allowing the original patent-holder for a drug to collect royalties on any generic versions that are sold after the five-year patent expires. You wouldn't need to jack prices up if you knew a drug you developed would continue driving an income stream after the first five years.

Good idea! Make them similar to USA patent laws.