• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frustration mounts over ObamaCare co-op failures

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A 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.
Frustration mounts over ObamaCare co-op failures | TheHill

 
Should have done this right, should have had a public option.

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.
 
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.
 
No one but the individual should be responsible for their healthcare.

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.
 
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.
 
"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.

The healthcare system has been allowed to, itself, aggregate to unreasonable levels. I can save Paul some money by aggregating costs and risk over the entire population, while increasing Paul and Peter's access to healthcare.

General welfare spoken to in the constitution is the general welfare of the People, which now can include healthcare.

Pay less, get more with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
 
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, schooling, healthcare, etc should burn in fire.
 
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.

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.
 
The healthcare system has been allowed to, itself, aggregate to unreasonable levels.
That is opinion, nor is it 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.
Not your or the Gov's job.

And taking from one to give to another is wrong.


General welfare spoken to in the constitution is the general welfare of the People, which now can include 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.
Again, taking care of a contagion which would devastate the nation is an example of the general welfare that is being spoken about.


Pay less, get more with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
No. Not by taking from one to give to another.
You want it, you earn it.
 
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.

I don't care. You don't take from people simply to lower your bills.
 
That is opinion, nor is it the Gov's job.

It's not opinion, it's fact. The US has one of the most expensive and least accessible healthcare systems of the modern nations.

Not your or the Gov's job.

And taking from one to give to another is wrong.
\

That's opinion. And it's not taking from one to give to another. Everyone gets access.

No. General welfare means in-general and is in regards to the Public as a whole, not to an individual's needs healthcare needs.

And nationalize healthcare is in general and is in regards to the Public as a whole. Thanks for agreeing with me.


No. Not by taking from one to give to another.
You want it, you earn it.

Yes, by aggregating over the whole you can pay less and gain greater access to healthcare with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
 
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. 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.

Ok, so what service that is provided by the private sector do you think that argument wouldn't work for? Please share. I'm pretty sure if you were going to get the government to provide any service by the private sector costs to the end user would be seen as lower(they're not when you take into account taxes), and I'm pretty sure the government providing any service whatsoever would increase access.

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.

I never said I agreed with insurance. Without government mandates however insurance is a voluntary decision, so it's not even comparable.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so what service that is provided by the private sector do you think that argument wouldn't work for? Please share.

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.

I never said I agreed with insurance. Without government mandates insurance is a voluntary decision anyway, so it's not even comparable.

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.
 
It's not opinion, it's fact. The US has one of the most expensive and least accessible healthcare systems of the modern nations.
Stop with the spin.
No, "unreasonable" is the word you used and that is all OPINION.

And access is nothing more than a bs buzzword.


That's opinion. And it's not taking from one to give to another. Everyone gets access.
Access? iLOL
Irrelevant bs buzzword.

If you think it is just opinion, then please show us where it is written that cost is your or the government's business.


And nationalize healthcare is in general and is in regards to the Public as a whole. Thanks for agreeing with me.
More bs.
No one agreed with you.
A service which is concerned with "individual" health is not a "general welfare" concern.

Again;
"... taking care of a contagion which would devastate the nation is an example of the general welfare that is being spoken about."


Yes, by aggregating over the whole you can pay less and gain greater access to healthcare with an intelligently designed public healthcare system.
More of that bs buzzword. It is called affordability, not access.

Still no though. Not by taking from one to give to another.
You want it, you pay for/earn it.
 
You do know what insurance does, right? It essentially takes from many people in order to lower bills of the individual...aggregation of risk.
What seems to escape you is that is done by choice.
 
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.

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?


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?

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.

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.

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.
 
What seems to escape you is that is done by choice.

"choice"

i.e. availability and affordability. You cannot choose not to have car insurance. And have you tried going without medical insurance? The only people who choose that are those who cannot afford it. So not really a choice per say.

As it stands, America has the most expensive, least accessible healthcare system of the modern world. A public option does what insurance does on the level of the country and thus is able to aggregate costs and risks far more effectively and efficiently. Providing not just for the general welfare of the people, but lower costs and increasing access in the process.
 
including car insurance
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.
 
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?

Things aggregated to far lower values and size. There's plenty private business can do, but it cannot do everything. Healthcare has aggregated itself to such large levels, financially and universally across the People. The current insurance system isn't working, it's produced a system that is amongst the most expensive and most exclusive in the modern world.


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.

Yes, government mandates that you have car insurance. You cannot drive a car without it.

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.

The current system of insurance is, indeed, one reason why costs have become inflated. The poor regulations, the improper regulations, on insurance are one of the reasons that happened. It doesn't mean there should be zero regulation, there needs to be proper regulation. What we have now obviously, and measurable, doesn't work.
 
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.

No, it's just that you don't agree, so you are left with insults.

Car 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.
 
As it stands, America has the most expensive, least accessible healthcare system of the modern world.
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.


Providing not just for the general welfare of the people, but lower costs and increasing access in the process.
Invalid argument.
1. Not the general welfare being spoken about.
2. Does not overcome the wrongness of taking from Peter to give to Paul.
 
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.

Paul saves money and gets greater access to healthcare, as does Peter. Peter is still paying as well, just not as much (as is Paul).

less money for and greater access to healthcare is what can be achieved through proper use of nationalized healthcare.

Invalid argument.
1. Not the general welfare being spoken about.
2. Does not overcome the wrongness of taking from Peter to give to Paul.

Just an opinion, you've given not proof that it is an invalid argument. General welfare is general welfare, and now that healthcare has aggregated to such levels of technology and sophistication it has and prices are where they are and that everyone has the right to life, under general welfare we can make a nationalized healthcare system that ultimately saves the People money and allows them better access to our healthcare system. Improving quality of life and individual liberty.

Peter and Paul both make out well.
 
No, it's just that you don't agree, so you are left with insults.
Ignorance is not an insult.


Car 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.
Besides being wrong, you are still missing the point
1. They are not the same. You are required to have liability which is to cover damages you cause. Not injury to yourself as healthcare coverage does.
They simply are not the same thing.
2. You are also wrong as you can drive a motor vehicle without insurance on your own property.
 
United Health care is leaving the exchange. BCBS is going to limit it to certain counties.
"UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield are the only health-care insurers that sold marketplace plans in every Arizona county this year. If Blue Cross Blue Shield also drops marketplace plans in some rural counties, it could leave consumers in those counties without a way to get subsidized health-care insurance.


One of Arizona's largest health-care insurers to exit marketplace; second could follow


imo, Obamacare has been a train wreck. Less coverage and higher premiums.
 
Back
Top Bottom