- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Frustration mounts over ObamaCare co-op failures | TheHillA new wave of failures among ObamaCare's nonprofit health insurers is disrupting coverage for thousands of enrollees and raising questions about whether regulators could have acted earlier to head off some of the problems. Four ObamaCare co-ops have failed due to financial problems since the beginning of the year, the latest trouble for the struggling program.
The co-ops were set up under ObamaCare to increase competition with established insurers, but just seven of the original 23 co-ops now remain. The latest round of failures poses an even thornier problem than earlier cases because enrollees’ coverage is now being disrupted in the middle of the year. That can increase patients’ out of pocket costs and make it harder to keep the same doctors.
In Illinois, Oregon, and Ohio, a combined total of about 92,000 people are being forced to find a new plan. A co-op in a fourth state, Connecticut, will last until the end of the year.
No one but the individual should be responsible for their healthcare.We could benefit the people greatly by a real National Healthcare System...but that won't net the Republocrats profit, so we will never get it.
No one but the individual should be responsible for their healthcare.
"Individual" welfare (healthcare) is not the "general" welfare spoken about. Inoculations against a contagion that would devastate the nation would be.Less we save the aggregate people money by aggregating risks and costs over the whole. Then people can end up paying less for and having more access to healthcare. Part of the reason government exists is general welfare.
"Individual" welfare (healthcare) is not the "general" welfare spoken about. Inoculations against a contagion that would devastate the nation would be.
You do not take from Peter to provide for Paul that which he should be providing himself.
Healthcare is and has always been the product of another's effort.
If you want that product, you pay for it.
Less we save the aggregate people money by aggregating risks and costs over the whole. Then people can end up paying less for and having more access to healthcare. Part of the reason government exists is general welfare.
I don't see why anyone should have to pay for individual services of other people. The whole concept of the government providing people access to individual services like food, housing, healthcare, etc should burn in fire.
That is opinion, nor is it the Gov's job.The healthcare system has been allowed to, itself, aggregate to unreasonable levels.
Not your or the Gov's job.I can save Paul some money by aggregating costs and risk over the entire population, while increasing Paul and Peter's access to healthcare.
No. General welfare means in-general and is in regards to the Public as a whole, not to an individual's needs healthcare needs.General welfare spoken to in the constitution is the general welfare of the People, which now can include healthcare.
No. Not by taking from one to give to another.Pay less, get more with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
Because we can overall make certain commodities cheaper by doing so. There can be quite the efficiency gain too without throwing people under the bus. America currently has one of the most expensive and least accessible healthcare systems of the modern world. We can overall reduce the money we spend on healthcare while increasing access to it through proper use of government aggregation.
I don't know, if you're ok just letting people die because they couldn't afford proper care, I suppose that's a position to take. But we have the means and resources to provide better healthcare to everyone, and as a moral prerogative in the least I think it's worth looking at (I'm pro-life after all). And as fiscal incentive, it can save people money, and is again worth investigating. General welfare is a purpose of government.
That is opinion, nor is it the Gov's job.
\Not your or the Gov's job.
And taking from one to give to another is wrong.
No. General welfare means in-general and is in regards to the Public as a whole, not to an individual's needs healthcare needs.
No. Not by taking from one to give to another.
You want it, you earn it.
I don't care. You don't take from people simply to lower your bills.
OK. It's lowering everyone's bills. It's granting access to healthcare for everyone. It provides financial and functional incentives for the whole of society in general.
You do know what insurance does, right? It essentially takes from many people in order to lower bills of the individual...aggregation of risk. But let's not think about the issue, let's reduce it to a black and white statement that oversimplifies everything in order to make a stand that ultimately hurts everyone.
Ok, so what service that is provided by the private sector do you think that argument wouldn't work for? Please share.
I never said I agreed with insurance. Without government mandates insurance is a voluntary decision anyway, so it's not even comparable.
Stop with the spin.It's not opinion, it's fact. The US has one of the most expensive and least accessible healthcare systems of the modern nations.
Access? iLOLThat's opinion. And it's not taking from one to give to another. Everyone gets access.
More bs.And nationalize healthcare is in general and is in regards to the Public as a whole. Thanks for agreeing with me.
More of that bs buzzword. It is called affordability, not access.Yes, by aggregating over the whole you can pay less and gain greater access to healthcare with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
What seems to escape you is that is done by choice.You do know what insurance does, right? It essentially takes from many people in order to lower bills of the individual...aggregation of risk.
Our insurance and healthcare system clearly do not work well at this point. America has the highest costs and lowest accessibility to healthcare than any other advanced nation.
it's the same system and dynamics as insurance. there are plenty of places where we have government mandates for insurance, including car insurance and now health insurance. You for ending car insurance as well?
And have you tried going without medical insurance? The prices have over inflated to ridiculous values. It's one reason we have insurance, but the system hasn't been regulated well and thus it's exploded into the mess that we have currently. An intelligently designed nationalized healthcare system can lower the costs of healthcare while increasing the access to it for everyone.
What seems to escape you is that is done by choice.
Oy Vey! Not the same thing.including car insurance
That doesn't answer the question. Lets try it again and maybe this time you will answer it. What service provided by the private sector would your argument not work for?
Government mandates dealing with car insurance? Yes. I also didn't say I'm for ending medical insurance, but just that I don't really support the concept.
The insurance is actually one reason the costs have become inflated. :shrug: The regulations on insurance are in fact one of the reasons that happened.
Oy Vey! Not the same thing.
You are required to have insurance to cover liability for damage you cause.
Your loan institution would require the asset be covered to protect them. Not you.
Showing your reply above this one to be ignorant.
iLOLAs it stands, America has the most expensive, least accessible healthcare system of the modern world.
Invalid argument.Providing not just for the general welfare of the people, but lower costs and increasing access in the process.
iLOL
That is the same argument.
And if you want the costs to be lower, then fix the issues for why the charge as much as they do in the first place.
But still not a valid reason to go to a system that would take form Peter to give to Paul.
Invalid argument.
1. Not the general welfare being spoken about.
2. Does not overcome the wrongness of taking from Peter to give to Paul.
Ignorance is not an insult.No, it's just that you don't agree, so you are left with insults.
Besides being wrong, you are still missing the pointCar insurance is mandated by the government. You cannot drive without it. This is regardless of whether you own the car outright or it is owned by another entity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?