AHA Discussions Go On & On.......

[Skylar]

With all due respect, Mr Ramsey's argument has holes big enough to drive a truck through

1) To understand this issue one must realize that health "insurance" is not "Insurance", it is health care. Everyone, all of us, do, or will, need health care. We do not all need car insurance. It is different. Mr Ramsey talks about the 500 lb diabetic with three heart attacks as if it is new spending in the health care system. It is not new spending. That person is already receiving health care, and if they have no insurance we (you and I) eat the losses with higher costs that we, and our current insurers, and the government pay for. That was $117b last year. Again, the costs are not new costs. Mr Ramsey is incorrect on his assumption. Yes those costs will shift, yes different providers will realize different effects on their businesses, but these are not new costs.

2) While he bases his argument on MATH (oohhh!, look, numbers) he did not show me any math. There was no factual support to his argument, none, not a bit. Might it be just possible that the MATH didn't work out? Could he find no study from anyone to support his assertions? I do not know if costs will go up or down (For me, I am already saving $9800 per year with the reforms, and I haven't shopped the marketplace yet). But what I do know is that if you are basing your argument on MATH, and you choose to show me none, your argument must be pretty weak.

3) 46% of Americans "pay nothing" is incorrect. They may pay no income tax, but the "pay nothing" statement is part of what got Romney into trouble in the last election. Of the non taxpayers 53.6% (Oohhh, math) make less than $16, 812 per year. They pay no income taxes because they are poor. They do pay other taxes, such as sales tax, Social Security, Medicare, gas tax, on and on. Are we to tax someone who make $1400 a month gross?

4) His discussion of Social Security is misleading, he should know better. You do not pay into your account, you pay into the pool, and when your time comes you get paid. While I am not trying to cover up the myriad of problems both due to actuarial tables and Congress raiding the fund, his description of how it works is intentionally misleading.

Look, I know i'm the flaming f'in liberal on this site (and proud of it!). I also know that the ACA is a crap shoot because the health care system is so complex. But I tend to ask questions of arguments presented to me. This video was a puff piece, no proof, no facts. I'm just gonna scare you with MATH! And my math says I'm $9800 to the good.

Okay, I'm done now....!

I suggest you go shop the Wi marketplace for insurance then, check the 2013 box, see what the rates are, then redo it and check the 2014 box, and see what the rates are. I have, huge increase for 2014. Maybe for your county it will be different.

ACA will not do anything to reduce the actual health care costs, guaranteed.

What is your current insurance plan now? HMO, HSA, HRA? We just received the costs for 2014 health insurance through my wife's work, 4 different plans available, looks like we will be going with an HSA plan for 2014, the premium each month is not bad at all, but, it will have a 4k deductible. Now, the amount we will put into the hsa plan will not cover that deductible if something were to happen. This hsa plan is the only plan they are offering that will not see an increase for 2014. I have had a 500 deductible on my health insurance plans for over 20 years now, it sucks that I can no longer afford this. Yes, rates have been going up every year, but usually not to the tune of 25-35 percent in one crack, at least not in my experience.

 

[dcsnomo]

I suggest you go shop the Wi marketplace for insurance then, check the 2013 box, see what the rates are, then redo it and check the 2014 box, and see what the rates are. I have, huge increase for 2014. Maybe for your county it will be different.

ACA will not do anything to reduce the actual health care costs, guaranteed.

What is your current insurance plan now? HMO, HSA, HRA? We just received the costs for 2014 health insurance through my wife's work, 4 different plans available, looks like we will be going with an HSA plan for 2014, the premium each month is not bad at all, but, it will have a 4k deductible. Now, the amount we will put into the hsa plan will not cover that deductible if something were to happen. This hsa plan is the only plan they are offering that will not see an increase for 2014. I have had a 500 deductible on my health insurance plans for over 20 years now, it sucks that I can no longer afford this. Yes, rates have been going up every year, but usually not to the tune of 25-35 percent in one crack, at least not in my experience.

Skylar- I believe you. My point was not regarding AHA itself, it was the video. The video is a slickly produced piece of huckster fluff that is intentionally misleading with no substantiating evidence. Oooohhh, math. Show me some.

My insurance is individual single person on a single policy with a pre-existing condition, bought through an agent . Yes, I am the definition of the health care crisis in America. When I can save $900 a month I pay attention, that's got new Arctic Cat written all over it!

 

[russholio]

To understand this issue one must realize that health "insurance" is not "Insurance", it is health care.

How do you come to this conclusion? As near as I can tell, "health care" is a service you receive from a provider. "Insurance" is what pays the bill, in whole or in part, so that your burden is minimized.

If you disagree, then would you say that auto insurance is not really insurance, but auto repair?

 

[dcsnomo]

How do you come to this conclusion? As near as I can tell, "health care" is a service you receive from a provider. "Insurance" is what pays the bill, in whole or in part, so that your burden is minimized.

If you disagree, then would you say that auto insurance is not really insurance, but auto repair?

No, they are vastly different. Auto insurance guards against a possible calamity...accident, theft. I may own a car and never file a claim. I may not own a car and have no use for it. Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment.

Health care is not necessarily a loss, a calamity. It is the maintenance of your body, and everyone needs it at some point. Car insurance covers an "event", an accident, a theft. Health care does indeed have a catastrophic part to it (hitting a tree on a sled), but everyone, everyone, uses and needs health care. Everyone.

Now let's go out on a limb here...since everyone needs health care, shouldn't everyone be somewhat responsible for it? And, shouldn't providers be responsible to provide it on a fair and equitable basis? Because, remember, if someone can't or won't get health insurance they will still get healthcare, they will still drive up the costs for you, me, the providers, and the government. The lack of insurance does not eliminate the costs of the uninsured.

 

[russholio]

No, they are vastly different. Auto insurance guards against a possible calamity...accident, theft. I may own a car and never file a claim. I may not own a car and have no use for it. Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment.

Health care is not necessarily a loss, a calamity. It is the maintenance of your body, and everyone needs it at some point. Car insurance covers an "event", an accident, a theft. Health care does indeed have a catastrophic part to it (hitting a tree on a sled), but everyone, everyone, uses and needs health care. Everyone.

Now let's go out on a limb here...since everyone needs health care, shouldn't everyone be somewhat responsible for it? And, shouldn't providers be responsible to provide it on a fair and equitable basis? Because, remember, if someone can't or won't get health insurance they will still get healthcare, they will still drive up the costs for you, me, the providers, and the government.

Auto insurance does not, and cannot "guard" against a calamity. It only "guards" YOU against having to pay for it (minus your deductible). And auto insurance does not cover maintenance, while health insurance does.

I would argue that health insurance is also the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment -- remember, some people are more at-risk health wise than others, just as some drivers are more at-risk than others.

I would agree that everyone needs health care. I would agree that providers should provide it on a fair and equitable basis. But I don't see how ACA is going to change anything -- the haves will still be paying for the have nots, and in too many cases, paying more.

I agree the system needs a major overhaul. I worked long enough in EMS to figure that out. I'm not smart enough to know what the answer(s) is/are, but I know it sure isn't ACA.

 

[fusion]

Health care is not necessarily a loss, a calamity. It is the maintenance of your body, and everyone needs it at some point. Car insurance covers an "event", an accident, a theft. Health care does indeed have a catastrophic part to it (hitting a tree on a sled), but everyone, everyone, uses and needs health care. Everyone.

Now let's go out on a limb here...since everyone needs health care, shouldn't everyone be somewhat responsible for it? And, shouldn't providers be responsible to provide it on a fair and equitable basis? Because, remember, if someone can't or won't get health insurance they will still get healthcare, they will still drive up the costs for you, me, the providers, and the government. The lack of insurance does not eliminate the costs of the uninsured.[/QUOTE]

I know liberals are easily confused, so I'm going to start out by keeping this easy, with several very pointed, simple questions.
1.) If everyone gets treated now, including those without health insurance, and WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THEM....why was it necessary for the government to step in and MANDATE that we ALL have health insurance? Seems to me the system was working just fine as it was - anybody walking into an emergency room still got treated - right?

2.) Why is it that I should have to pay for ALL to have health insurance, when clearly a very large portion of those uninsured, A - do not want health insurance and/or B - are healthy enough they don't even think about it, or C - never did anything in their lives to be productive to WORK, in an attempt to work their way up to EARN health insurance benefits?

3.) What happens when really good doctors can longer charge higher rates for their services, competition for those stellar services are eliminated, and people no longer want to be doctors because the cost of the schooling and risk of malpractice, is outweighed by the less than optimal wages they can expect to earn? I'll answer this one for you - lack of doctors means shortage of healthcare, and waits at the emergency room, and long waiting periods for surgery. (like Canada) People will die.

It's called socialism, as opposed to the free market capitalist society this country was founded on, and socialism does not work - everywhere it has been tried?

 

[renegade]

I think the point of the video is that costs will not go down. How can they go down when an insurance company could say no to high risk preconditioned people in an effort to keep premiums down, now have to accept everyone. They can't possibly. The insurance companies know claims will increase so the premiums have to. If you will actually save $900 a month Dcsnomo, where do you think that money will be made up at? It will come from the increase in premiums of others.

 

[russholio]

I know liberals are easily confused, so I'm going to start out by keeping this easy, with several very pointed, simple questions.
1.) If everyone gets treated now, including those without health insurance, and WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THEM....why was it necessary for the government to step in and MANDATE that we ALL have health insurance? Seems to me the system was working just fine as it was - anybody walking into an emergency room still got treated - right?

2.) Why is it that I should have to pay for ALL to have health insurance, when clearly a very large portion of those uninsured, A - do not want health insurance and/or B - are healthy enough they don't even think about it, or C - never did anything in their lives to be productive to WORK, in an attempt to work their way up to EARN health insurance benefits?

3.) What happens when really good doctors can longer charge higher rates for their services, competition for those stellar services are eliminated, and people no longer want to be doctors because the cost of the schooling and risk of malpractice, is outweighed by the less than optimal wages they can expect to earn? I'll answer this one for you - lack of doctors means shortage of healthcare, and waits at the emergency room, and long waiting periods for surgery. (like Canada) People will die.

It's called socialism, as opposed to the free market capitalist society this country was founded on, and socialism does not work - everywhere it has been tried?

I would agree with most everything you say except this in bold. While it is partially true (usually, anybody walking into an ER would get treated), I would not say that means the system is working fine. In fact, it's often a sign that the system ISN'T working. The ER is a place for emergencies -- it's not supposed to be a substitute for issues that can be routinely handled at a doctor's office or for use as a drunk tank. But people go to the ER for non-emergencies because they know they can't be turned away, and often use the ambulance to get there -- double abuse of the system.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar- I believe you. My point was not regarding AHA itself, it was the video. The video is a slickly produced piece of huckster fluff that is intentionally misleading with no substantiating evidence. Oooohhh, math. Show me some.

My insurance is individual single person on a single policy with a pre-existing condition, bought through an agent . Yes, I am the definition of the health care crisis in America. When I can save $900 a month I pay attention, that's got new Arctic Cat written all over it!

Whoa! WHOA WHOA! Are you fricken kidding me?!! You are getting a new cat? Bad ***!

 

[ezra]

Skylar- I believe you. My point was not regarding AHA itself, it was the video. The video is a slickly produced piece of huckster fluff that is intentionally misleading with no substantiating evidence. Oooohhh, math. Show me some.

My insurance is individual single person on a single policy with a pre-existing condition, bought through an agent . Yes, I am the definition of the health care crisis in America. When I can save $900 a month I pay attention, that's got new Arctic Cat written all over it!

Glad to be helping U pay for that new cat I cant afford. I just got a 300 buck a mo increase for me and the wife.and yep that is on a 10k deductible plan
and lets not try to fool any one here U would be waving the pom poms for any plan this administration pooped out

 

[cobalt_502]

Glad to be helping U pay for that new cat I cant afford. I just got a 300 buck a mo increase for me and the wife.and yep that is on a 10k deductible plan
and lets not try to fool any one here U would be waving the pom poms for any plan this administration pooped out

Amen Ezra! We are screwed either way, hospital ER waiting rooms and clinics have been filled with uninsured patients for years! The people that have insurance wait till the they are near death because they can't afford the deductible! The ones who have no intention of paying their bill will go in for a cough?

 

[jonesin]

Look, I know i'm the flaming f'in liberal on this site (and proud of it!). I also know that the ACA is a crap shoot because the health care system is so complex. But I tend to ask questions of arguments presented to me. This video was a puff piece, no proof, no facts. I'm just gonna scare you with MATH! And my math says I'm $9800 to the good.

Okay, I'm done now....![/QUOTE]

what a coincidence, proud supporter and the only one that I have heard of yet in person or on here that gets to benifit from the rest of us paying more, go owebama, yay!
I'd say your welcome but that wouldn't be the truth

 

[Deleted member 10829]

My insurance is individual single person on a single policy with a pre-existing condition, bought through an agent . Yes, I am the definition of the health care crisis in America. When I can save $900 a month I pay attention, that's got new Arctic Cat written all over it!

I was wondering how you were saving $900 per month, now I know. It has to do with your pre-existing condition. Before, they could price that in to reflect the risk, but now, they charge the same as a healthy person and the rest of us pay it. I can see where this ACA is maybe good for 10% of the population, but it mostly harms the other 90%. That's all part of the overall plan of wealth re-distribution.

 

[chords]

Isnt wealth distribution as you call it cover how all insurance, coverage or prevention works ? Bet you have no hurricane tornadoes flood claims. OK homeowners not mandatory, but auto is. Don't 90% pay for the 10 % every disaster

 

[rocketman356]

With the crazy high deductibles in these plans. Why not just wait until you sick and sign up and then cance because who here wants to buy that guy a new ride. And this bullshet deal would fail. Because Obummer Doesn't CARE really McSuckz

 

[dcsnomo]

Your insult is duly noted

I know liberals are easily confused, so I'm going to start out by keeping this easy, with several very pointed, simple questions.
1.) If everyone gets treated now, including those without health insurance, and WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THEM....why was it necessary for the government to step in and MANDATE that we ALL have health insurance? Seems to me the system was working just fine as it was - anybody walking into an emergency room still got treated - right?

2.) Why is it that I should have to pay for ALL to have health insurance, when clearly a very large portion of those uninsured, A - do not want health insurance and/or B - are healthy enough they don't even think about it, or C - never did anything in their lives to be productive to WORK, in an attempt to work their way up to EARN health insurance benefits?

3.) What happens when really good doctors can longer charge higher rates for their services, competition for those stellar services are eliminated, and people no longer want to be doctors because the cost of the schooling and risk of malpractice, is outweighed by the less than optimal wages they can expect to earn? I'll answer this one for you - lack of doctors means shortage of healthcare, and waits at the emergency room, and long waiting periods for surgery. (like Canada) People will die.

It's called socialism, as opposed to the free market capitalist society this country was founded on, and socialism does not work - everywhere it has been tried?

 

[russholio]

Isnt wealth distribution as you call it cover how all insurance, coverage or prevention works ? Bet you have no hurricane tornadoes flood claims. OK homeowners not mandatory, but auto is. Don't 90% pay for the 10 % every disaster

Theoretically, yes....but there is a major difference. In the case of homeowners and auto insurance, claims are paid from money that other insured homeowners or motorists paid into. In other words, they paid into the system they're now taking from. That is not always the case in the health care system.

 

[dcsnomo]

Answers
1) Because you should have at least some responsibility to pay for your health care. Quit sticking me with the bill. The system is far from working fine, emergency room treatments cost far more than regular care, and if they are uninsured I get to pay for it. i don't like that.

2) I have no idea how you think that YOU are paying for ALL to have insurance. You are paying for YOUR insurance. ALL the people who do not have insurance will need health care, ALL of them. I do not wish to pay for that. YOU pay for YOUR health care. Your statement about if people WORK they will EARN health insurance is a total misunderstanding of insurance in America. I am self employed. I WORK. I have to buy insurance that is prohibitively expensive on the individual market.
As info, only 44.6% of Americans get employer paid insurance, and that number is declining. 28.4% of the population is uninsured or individual plans, that is 93 million people. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152621/fewer-americans-employer-based-health-insurance.aspx

3) You are confusing the issue here. This system is totally different than Canada's. This is not government run health care. These are insurance companies (not the government) paying providers (not the government) for your health care. Same system as now. Modified, yes, but same system. In case you are interested, the US system is called "Multiple payer/Multiple provider". Canada's system is "Single payer/Multiple provider", a socialist system is "Single payer/Single provider".

To just uniformly brush off all Single payer/single provider systems as socialism that doesn't work negates some of the finer health care systems in the world. Might I suggest you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country to see who has socialized medicine, and contrast it with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems to see how those countries are ranked by the WHO.

Note that the finest health care system in the world is France, which is a single payer/single provider system. Other notable countries with similar health care ranking above the US (Which is #38 in quality but #1 in cost) are Single payer/single provider.

I know liberals are easily confused, so I'm going to start out by keeping this easy, with several very pointed, simple questions.
1.) If everyone gets treated now, including those without health insurance, and WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THEM....why was it necessary for the government to step in and MANDATE that we ALL have health insurance? Seems to me the system was working just fine as it was - anybody walking into an emergency room still got treated - right?

2.) Why is it that I should have to pay for ALL to have health insurance, when clearly a very large portion of those uninsured, A - do not want health insurance and/or B - are healthy enough they don't even think about it, or C - never did anything in their lives to be productive to WORK, in an attempt to work their way up to EARN health insurance benefits?

3.) What happens when really good doctors can longer charge higher rates for their services, competition for those stellar services are eliminated, and people no longer want to be doctors because the cost of the schooling and risk of malpractice, is outweighed by the less than optimal wages they can expect to earn? I'll answer this one for you - lack of doctors means shortage of healthcare, and waits at the emergency room, and long waiting periods for surgery. (like Canada) People will die.

It's called socialism, as opposed to the free market capitalist society this country was founded on, and socialism does not work - everywhere it has been tried?

 

[dcsnomo]

No, I'm not...gonna be fiscally responsible! The big red 4 stroke doesn't even have 5k on it yet...

Whoa! WHOA WHOA! Are you fricken kidding me?!! You are getting a new cat? Bad ***!

- - - Updated - - -

Isnt wealth distribution as you call it cover how all insurance, coverage or prevention works ? Bet you have no hurricane tornadoes flood claims. OK homeowners not mandatory, but auto is. Don't 90% pay for the 10 % every disaster

Actually, on a bigger scale, auto insurance is not mandatory. It is only mandatory to people who own cars. If you don't own a car you will never need auto insurance. Different from health care, which evrybody will need sooner or later

 

[Deleted member 10829]

Another difference between auto insurance and health insurance is the more risky drivers pay a much higher premium. Now, with health insurance, the less risky are paying more while the risky pay less. HUGE difference!!