Citizens Should Work and Pay a Tax to Qualify for Universal Healthcare [SPLIT]

[Benvolio]

But the government wont allow that. The politicians would lose their incentives from the Drug companies. That's the whole point.

To actually accomplish anything the big drug companies would have to first be broken up so they no longer have the clout to stop other actions.

There is nothing to prevent the formation of additional not-for profit compamies, but there is not much incentive to do it. I do not see eveidence that the existing non profit insurance is significantly cheaper than for profit insurance. It is not an easy business since health insurance companies charge premiums by guessing what providers will charge in the future.

 

[evanrick]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

really? if you want to play that game how about revoking the patents, trademarks and IP of every tax dodging corporation?

how short sighed can PEOPLE be?

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

really? if you want to play that game how about revoking the patents, trademarks and IP of every tax dodging corporation?

how short sighed can PEOPLE be?

I don't think there is anyone in here that actually believes Benvolio when he says that insurance companies are non-profit.

 

[Willie Boy]

There is nothing to prevent the formation of additional not-for profit companies, but there is not much incentive to do it.

There are no "not-for-profit" companies. There are non-profit organizations, although none of them provide insurance of any kind.....

I do not see eveidence that the existing non profit insurance is significantly cheaper than for profit insurance.

Not-for-profit insurance just wouldn't work.

It is not an easy business since health insurance companies charge premiums by guessing what providers will charge in the future.

No. They do not. They provide insurance by collecting premiums from a great number of people that are healthy to begin with and expecting to keep the payouts at a minimum. It has nothing to do with what service providers will charge in the future for medical care. Why do you think they like to find excuses to not take in those with expected health issues? They don't want to pay out. If you pass the health questionnaire and have no preexisting conditions (although ObamaCare has attempted to cut out that clause) they will provide insurance. They often have a long list of services they do not cover, unless you buy extra coverage that comes with a higher premium. If medical service providers increase their fees for service insurance carriers increase the premiums proportionately..... There is no real guessing going on..... Especially not in the way you describe.

 

[frankfrank]

You are quite mistake. All or virtually all states have some for of punitive damages for insurance companies who wrongfully refuse, including requiring the company to pay the insured's attorney's fees and costs. Most lawyers who handle litigation would take the case on a contingent fee.

Admittedly, I realize I'm missing one piece of the puzzle: If these people who had insurance rescinded on them (when they got sick) misrepresented or hid some pre-existing condition in the past which was "outed" when they finally got sick, that's something I don't know one way or another. One of those people I can't even ask anymore even if I want to (he's dead...later and unrelated to the insurance problem...which of course means I DO want to ask him - because that would mean that he did not die).

Rescission WAS sometimes mentioned in fleeting as one of the issues pre-ACA, so it obviously was happening enough to get at least some mentions. Enough that it was my biggest fear during the health trek.

But I also heard that pre-existing conditions were things as routine as having acne during high school 38 years ago, having had psychiatric care decades ago, or because of being a woman, etc.

 

[Benvolio]

Generally an illness from prior years would require a doctor's diagnosis to be regarded as preexisting. But, of course, you cannot wait until you contract an illness, then rush to get insurance. Most health policies do not cover psychiatric care; both the illness and the cure are subjective and the treatment is very expensive.

 

[TX-Beau]

Generally an illness from prior years would require a doctor's diagnosis to be regarded as preexisting. But, of course, you cannot wait until you contract an illness, then rush to get insurance. Most health policies do not cover psychiatric care; both the illness and the cure are subjective and the treatment is very expensive.

Of course Ben finds absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Even though it underscores the primary obscenity of healthcare for profit. Let's see, people are shady and dishonest, and attempting to take advantage of poor innocent insurance companies if they try to get insurance after they get sick - well why didn't the deadbeats have it before they got sick, and when people get excluded or kicked off because those poor insurance companies don't want to pay? Well fuck them.

If you're manic depressive fuck you too it's too expensive to help you.

WHY is it too expensive Ben?

Because your butt buddies are only after whatever cash they can squeeze out of the healthy and fuck anyone who actually needs expensive care.

It should be criminal for Insurance companies to decide who is going to live and who is going to die - it's already ethically reprehensible to let bureaucrats after cash make decisions about our very lives, in the name of profit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Much of the health insurance is not for profit. Blue Cross, Mutual of Omaha and others are mutual companies; the policy holders are shareholders and any profits go to reducing premiums.

And they're saddled with regulations that essentially require them to keep their prices as high as the for-profit outfits.

 

[Kulindahr]

To actually accomplish anything the big drug companies would have to first be broken up so they no longer have the clout to stop other actions.

No, just amend the Constitution to clarify that only living, breathing individual human citizens and legal residents have any political rights.

 

[Benvolio]

No, just amend the Constitution to clarify that only living, breathing individual human citizens and legal residents have any political rights.

The NYTimes, MSNBC, the Democratic Central Committee, Harvard University, and the Catholic Church are going to resist losing their freedom of speech, the press, and religion.

 

[Alnitak]

Of course Ben finds absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Even though it underscores the primary obscenity of healthcare for profit. Let's see, people are shady and dishonest, and attempting to take advantage of poor innocent insurance companies if they try to get insurance after they get sick - well why didn't the deadbeats have it before they got sick, and when people get excluded or kicked off because those poor insurance companies don't want to pay? Well fuck them.

If you're manic depressive fuck you too it's too expensive to help you.

WHY is it too expensive Ben?

Because your butt buddies are only after whatever cash they can squeeze out of the healthy and fuck anyone who actually needs expensive care.

It should be criminal for Insurance companies to decide who is going to live and who is going to die - it's already ethically reprehensible to let bureaucrats after cash make decisions about our very lives, in the name of profit.

It would defeat the concept of insurance if everyone held health insurance policies only when sick. Then the cost of insurance (COI) would equal the cost of private pay. Health actuaries really do try to figure out the lowest premiums possible based on their pool of healthy people in the previous year in your community. On the same token health insurance companies really do look to make profit.

Also, the law on guaranteed issue only applies to major medical. You can be declined supplemental health insurance (e.g. Medigap after initial enrollment, LTC, critical illness) because of preexisting conditions.

 

[rareboy]

^ This is why coverage from birth for an entire population is the only practical way of assessing and managing risk and costs. Once you have the largest pool possible contributing to private or state coverage , the demographically based needs of the entire population become more predictable (with episodic and sometimes catastrophic exceptions) and the costs more manageable.

 

[Benvolio]

^ This is why coverage from birth for an entire population is the only practical way of assessing and managing risk and costs. Once you have the largest pool possible contributing to private or state coverage , the demographically based needs of the entire population become more predictable (with episodic and sometimes catastrophic exceptions) and the costs more manageable.

The contributions will always be limited to fewer and fewer in the US. Socialism/communism has a certain appeal, but it is always at a sacrifice of freedom.

 

[Willie Boy]

No, just amend the Constitution to clarify that only living, breathing individual human citizens and legal residents have any political rights.

That wouldn't stop corporations from lobbying to get politicians to pass the laws/loopholes in the laws that are beneficial to their desires. The only way to truly make it work is to take away the ability of these corporations to fund such lobbying efforts. To do that one needs take away their financial power..... That would then take away their ability to supply the insurance they do, though, as they will no longer have the funds to back up their commitments. Maybe instead we should just do away with the whole process of lobbying and just have politicians vote on the bills they honestly believe in. Then we'd need to get politicians in office we truly believed in.......

Yeah, none of that is going to happen in any of your lifetimes.

 

[Keeland]

The contributions will always be limited to fewer and fewer in the US. Socialism/communism has a certain appeal, but it is always at a sacrifice of freedom.

Socialism/communism.

Capitalism/nazism.

 

[Willie Boy]

Fascism/nazism.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[rareboy]

The contributions will always be limited to fewer and fewer in the US. Socialism/communism has a certain appeal, but it is always at a sacrifice of freedom.

Again...you persist in pretending that the only way of contributing is through income tax. Which is nonsense.

And as someone who thrives in a socialist/capitalist system.....I can assure you that you are wrong. In fact, in Canada, we seem to have as many or even more rights and freedoms than any other country on earth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...nnials-frequently-on-the-run/article27066853/

You can keep spinning the myths and lies...but the fact is, the US comes in at only 15th when it comes to freedom.

And try as you might, you can trick smart people into thinking that socialism and communism are the same thing.

 

[T-Rexx]

Socialism/communism has a certain appeal, but it is always at a sacrifice of freedom.

Public schools do not reduce our freedom.

Interstate highways do not compromise our liberty.

Feeding our old and poor does not make us slaves.

 

[Keeland]

There, fixed it for you.

You diluted my point, perhaps on purpose and with little thought. Quotes should be sacrosanct.

 

[rareboy]

Again...you persist in pretending that the only way of contributing is through income tax. Which is nonsense.

And as someone who thrives in a socialist/capitalist system.....I can assure you that you are wrong. In fact, in Canada, we seem to have as many or even more rights and freedoms than any other country on earth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...nnials-frequently-on-the-run/article27066853/

You can keep spinning the myths and lies...but the fact is, the US comes in at only 15th when it comes to freedom.

And try as you might, you cannot trick smart people into thinking that socialism and communism are the same thing.

There. Fixed it for me.