Are Republicans Trying to Hurt the Insurance Business?

[reinoe]

What are you talking about? Social Security? Sorry, but I don't owe you squat.



I don't support forcing taxpayers to pay for other peoples healthcare needs. :shrug:



That is stupidest ****ing article I have seen in a while. How is forcing people into commerce freedom? WTF is wrong with the author of that article? Interestingly enough, this whole free-rider problem is a government creation.

Do you support ending medicare and social security.

 

[Henrin]

Do you support ending medicare and social security.

Yes, I do.

 

[aberrant85]

A 26 year old is not a child and should not be treated as one. If they have a health emergency they need to pay for it like everyone else.



What does that have to do with anything? There is a good chance a twenty-six year old has kids of their own and you're sitting here supporting the idea that they should still be supported by their parents. At what point do you think a parent should cut their kids lose? Never? Just support them like they're still children until the day you die? That's ****ed up man.

Well why not? When you've deregulated business to the point that everything we buy is made in Bangladesh, then a few young people are going to find there's no work out there for them and will have no choice but to stay at home or become homeless.

The free market at its best!

 

[Kobie]

I hurts every one because it raise the cost of insurance. cant you liberal get it through your thick skull NOT A GOD DAM THING IS FREE SOME ONE ELSE IS ALWAYS LEFT WITH THE BILL

Using "liberal" as a pejorative is not a way to get anyone to actually listen to you.

 

[Henrin]

Well why not? When you've deregulated business to the point that everything we buy is made in Bangladesh, then a few young people are going to find there's no work out there for them and will have no choice but to stay at home or become homeless.

The free market at its best!

I have no reason to respond to your post seriously as if there is no jobs in the US and somehow that is the free markets fault or that it was caused by deregulation as if that even begins to make sense in an environment where new regulations are constantly being imposed on businesses.

As I said, a twenty-six year old is an adult and should be treated as one. Their healthcare needs are no longer the responsibility of their parents. A good parent would not be paying any bills for their kids when they are twenty-six years old. They would expect them to pay their own way or deal with the consequences.

 

[Moot]

What are you talking about? Social Security? Sorry, but I don't owe you squat.

Good, because I could care less about your measly squat.

I don't support forcing taxpayers to pay for other peoples healthcare needs. :shrug:

Sorry but that is what you're supporting when you force taxpayers to pay for 'free riders'.

That is the stupidest ****ing article I have seen in a while. How is forcing people into commerce freedom? WTF is wrong with the author of that article? Interestingly enough, this whole free-rider problem is a government creation.

The individual mandate was a republican idea.

 

[Henrin]

Good, because I could care less about your measly squat.

Well, I could care less about your ****ty ideas you want to force me to be part of.

Sorry but that is what you're supporting when you force taxpayers to pay for 'free riders'.

I'm not forcing taxpayers to do anything. Welfare is something you support, so it's on you babe if it costs money,

The individual mandate was a republican idea.

More like a republican think tank idea that was later rejected by the very same think tank. Think tanks have the job of coming up with ideas and it just so happens many of them are terrible.

 

[aberrant85]

I have no reason to respond to your post seriously as if there is no jobs in the US and somehow that is the free markets fault or that it was caused by deregulation as if that even begins to make sense in an environment where new regulations are constantly being imposed on businesses.

As I said, a twenty-six year old is an adult and should be treated as one. Their healthcare needs are no longer the responsibility of their parents. A good parent would not be paying any bills for their kids when they are twenty-six years old. They would expect them to pay their own way or deal with the consequences.

Thanks for responding seriously even though you didn't have to

It's not a secret that jobs have been leaving the US when businesses move production off-shore. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that the conservative answer is usually to make the US more competitive, while liberals don't think we should give up the progress we've made to compete with sweat shops in Bangladesh. A free market with no regulation and low tariffs encourages and even demands that businesses move overseas in order to be competitive, costing Americans jobs that go to people in the 3rd world that will work for 1/10th as much. Can you explain to me how the free market will lower unemployment?

As for your theory on parenting, you seem to be denying the instinctive drive in humans to see their genetic material passed on and thrive. That is to say, most parents would not allow their kids to become destitute without stepping in a little. I can imagine the parents that "expect them to pay their own way or deal with the consequences" but that hard of a line sounds pretty horrifying, and if that's been your experience I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Moot]

Well, I could care less about your ****ty ideas you want to force me to be part of.

I'm not forcing taxpayers to do anything. Welfare is something you support, so it's on you babe if it costs money,

More like a republican think tank idea that was later rejected by the very same think tank. Think tanks have the job of coming up with ideas and it just so happens many of them are terrible.

I'm not forced to read or respond to your ****ty posts, either.

 

[American]

With Obamacare basically a done deal we're now seeing these ads:



But the insurance industry needs young people to sign up for coverage if they are going to be able to afford the sick people that sign up as well. By encouraging healthy people to opt out, aren't they in effect attempting to make the insurance companies go broke? If that's so, doesn't that seem pretty anti-business for the pro-business party?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/politics/reignited-battle-over-health-law.html?hp&_r=0

The overarching goal is to persuade many of today’s 48 million uninsured to sign up for insurance on the new exchanges created by the law. Crucially, officials need to woo older, sicker people without insurance as well as younger, healthier people, whose payments effectively subsidize those who will end up using more health care...

But even as Mr. Obama’s campaign accelerates, Republicans at all political levels are working against the law.

The Republican National Committee has begun what it calls a monthlong awareness campaign, with a television booking operation to make sure that pundits opposed to the law are always available to counter its boosters...

Other conservative groups are broadcasting television advertisements that urge people not to sign up for coverage under the health care law. Americans for Prosperity began broadcasting an ad last week featuring a cancer survivor who warns about the dangers of the law. It is the latest in a series of commercials featuring women criticizing the law.

Hahahahaah

 

[American]

Good, because I could care less about your measly squat.

Sorry but that is what you're supporting when you force taxpayers to pay for 'free riders'.

The individual mandate was a republican idea.

Republicans voted against it. Try again.

 

[GottaGo]

Do you realize that your comment is contradictory? If a 26-year old is covered under their parents plan, that means someone is paying the insurance company. That means they are getting the young, healthy people.

You do realize, if a family of two adults (parents) and 2 kids is paying for family coverage, that a family of two adults and 3 kids (one over 21 but under 26 on this insurance mandate) pays the same premium?

So, exactly who is paying for the 26 year old again?

 

[trfjr]

You do realize, if a family of two adults (parents) and 2 kids is paying for family coverage, that a family of two adults and 3 kids (one over 21 but under 26 on this insurance mandate) pays the same premium?

So, exactly who is paying for the 26 year old again?

what liberals don't understand insurance companies calculate the cost of a family plan with the premise of paying for the kids till 18 years of age now they will be forced to recalculate the plans for the added 8 years which will cause the cost of the plan to rise

 

[earthworm]

Obamacare sucks for every working American that has maintained insurance all their lives. People that ignored coverage until they were sick are being rewarded for poor behavior

That is human nature, NOT really "poor" behavour...And many jobs offered Blue-Cross/Blue Shield.....back in the day...so there was no need....and did you ever price individual health care insurance ....UNAFFORDABLE ! ...........COBRA.......
IMO, its better that our federal government take over this end of things and make it affordable for all people...much like social security....
As to "people ignoring coverage until sick"....they would not be granted any coverage anyway by the greedy insurance companies.

 

[MaggieD]

Obamacare sucks for every working American that has maintained insurance all their lives. People that ignored coverage until they were sick are being rewarded for poor behavior

You don't know that. You think that. You assume that. All those "working Americans" you speak of who have maintained insurance all of their lives? *Boo-Hoo-Hoo* Most of them, the greater majority of them, did no such thing. They were given healthcare by their employers. Their plans were heavily subsidized by their employers. Hell, most people don't even know what their healthcare insurance costs.

Now...me? And others like me? Those entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs, invest in themselves and their own future? They've been royally screwed by the health insurance model in this country. Up until now. Boo-Hoo for them in the past. And three cheers for the future.

 

[GottaGo]

That is human nature, NOT really "poor" behavour...And many jobs offered Blue-Cross/Blue Shield.....back in the day...so there was no need....and did you ever price individual health care insurance ....UNAFFORDABLE ! ...........COBRA.......
IMO, its better that our federal government take over this end of things and make it affordable for all people...much like social security....
As to "people ignoring coverage until sick"....they would not be granted any coverage anyway by the greedy insurance companies.

Affordability used to be based on what type of coverage you wanted. If you wanted all the bells and whistles, you would pay for it. If you wanted just catastrophic coverage, easily available for $160 for a single male age 55.

Those with PE conditions went into the high risk pool usually run by the States, so coverage is/was available, just at higher premiums to make up for the lack of pre-paid premiums.

The government should not be involved, at least on the Federal level, in health care, medical insurance or people's private lives.

 

[earthworm]

Whoa. Tag team.

Regardless of your super judgmental position, I don't see how it hurts anyone.

I think this is better , that the "child" up to the age of 26 be covered under the parents plan.
Their expenses are quite high (student loans) and the jobs do not pay well for a "beginner" .
But, I still feel that our government should take over the financing of health care....
We should have a health care system similar to that of the earth's more advanced nations (Germany, France, Japan, England, Russia)

 

[earthworm]

Affordability used to be based on what type of coverage you wanted. If you wanted all the bells and whistles, you would pay for it. If you wanted just catastrophic coverage, easily available for $160 for a single male age 55.

Those with PE conditions went into the high risk pool usually run by the States, so coverage is/was available, just at higher premiums to make up for the lack of pre-paid premiums.

The government should not be involved, at least on the Federal level, in health care, medical insurance or people's private lives.

I favor a health care plan where the individual pays for all the "bells and whistles".....and I think the basic costs should be shared 50-50...Similar the the VA set up.
But, GottaGo, you do have good valid points...

 

[GottaGo]

I favor a health care plan where the individual pays for all the "bells and whistles".....and I think the basic costs should be shared 50-50...Similar the the VA set up.
But, GottaGo, you do have good valid points...

The VA setup is part of the benefit package offered to our military, so I have no issue contributing (via tax money) to it.

On the civilian end of it, Medicare/Medicaid for the low income group could have easily been expanded for those who could not afford even the basic insurance, but means testing would have to be tightened up. I also would not have a problem contributing towards a basic coverage plan for those who fell into this group.

What I have the issue with is paying for full on everything covered plan, which I have been paying for with my own money, and it's not only being 'given' to those who can't pay for it, but everyone else is paying for it in a multitude of ways, it's required just because you have a pulse, and the beneficiary of the mandate is (mostly) for-profit companies.

And before you say the government should run it because it's 'non-profit', think long and hard on it.

 

[earthworm]

the lie is not telling the young and healthy that they are going to get charged more then they should be charged so the unhealthy don't have to pay as much. it is a Ponzi Scheme

It is bad enough you wage war on the successful by taxing them more and more so the not so successful can have what they worked hard for
now you want to do the same to the healthy by making them pay more then they should for health insurance so the not so healthy doesn't pay as much

why do you hate the wealthy and now the healthy so much why do you want to punish them

This would be more logical with proper punctuation and grammar.

 

[DaveFagan]

If Republicans are against this bill, you can be certain they are being financed by Insurance, HMOs, and big Pharma to try and derail it. That means that Insurance, HMOs, and Big Pharma have already deduced that this bill will lower their profits and their Republican toadies are working hard for big business vested interests. Just a fact, Jack. Politics as usual.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Obamacare sucks for every working American that has maintained insurance all their lives. People that ignored coverage until they were sick are being rewarded for poor behavior

Really? When I was on active duty, my oldest son got a severe case of rheumatic fever, and the military health care system took care of him and likely saved his life. But I have since retired from the Navy, and once my son turned 22 (this was years before Obamacare upped the limit to 26), his health care coverage stopped...and no health insurance company would touch him because of his pre-existing condition. But thanks to Obamacare, this coming October 1st, my son will have access to health insurance for the first time in eight years.

And then there's my brother-in-law, who just immigrated here to America this past July - it took us twenty-five freaking years to get him here - my wife petitioned him when he was eighteen, and now he's 43 of course (and NO, he's not a ward of the state - I and my wife are legally responsible for ALL his expenses - that's the way immigration works). Anyway, he has a heart condition. Do you really think that, after living overseas for all his life and having a heart condition, any health insurance company would even consider covering him? Of course not. But thanks to Obamacare, this coming October 1st, I'm going to be sitting down with him in front of a computer figuring out this health care exchange system.

BUT if we had things YOUR way, my oldest son and my brother in law would both be s**t out of luck...and apparently that would be your cue to say, "Welcome to America, land of the free! And don't get sick, but if you do, die quickly so you won't bankrupt your family members."

 

[earthworm]

If I am presented with a good enough argument from the "right", I could well change mind mind on this issue and be in the " less regulations, less taxes and less government" boat..
And, has this ever really been tried ??
A mistake made by the right I have observed at other sites, is their propensity to insult and abase those who disagree with them.
Craigslist is especially bad in this respect.
Here at Debates, the conservatives are much better behaved.

 

[earthworm]

As to the question "is the GOP trying to hurt the insurance industry" ?
no vote
I simply do not know.
I do know that it is not right that any business should profit so on man's suffering and ills.
But, this is JMO.

 

[MaggieD]

Affordability used to be based on what type of coverage you wanted. If you wanted all the bells and whistles, you would pay for it. If you wanted just catastrophic coverage, easily available for $160 for a single male age 55.

Those with PE conditions went into the high risk pool usually run by the States, so coverage is/was available, just at higher premiums to make up for the lack of pre-paid premiums.

The government should not be involved, at least on the Federal level, in health care, medical insurance or people's private lives.

$10,000 deductible health insurance policies haven't been available for $155 a month for a 55-year-old for I-don't-know-how-long. Try $600 a month. Someone else who has absolutely no idea what health insurance costs.

Those high-risk pools you speak of? Limited enrollment. Often a waiting list. Often 6-month pre-existing conditions exclusion. Subsidized? Yes. But still so expensive the only people who can afford to buy that coverage are wealthy.