• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Hypocritical note about Conservatives/Republicans on the cost of healthcare

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know - when they were debating the healthcare bill *before it passed* i kept hearing "there's nothing wrong with the insurance companies making a little bit of profit" . . . and "free market! Profit is great!" and things like this. . . defending the insurance companies making some profit, opposing Obama's legislation. . .

Ok - so yesterday these *same people* said "my insurance premiums WENT UP and my insurance company says it's because they're anticipating future changes because of the healthcare bill . . . "

And by *these same people* I'm SPECIFICALLY referring to the voices like Bill O'Reilly.

Ok - so if Bill, last year, said "it's ok for the companies to make some profit on health insurance" - then he shouldn't BE BITCHING now should he?

The Liberals and Democrats, however, who said that *profit on health care is wrong* should be complaining at the moment- yes?

Now - right here I'll point out that I READ the bill - yep - I read it. . . little ole me. . . and there are quite a few areas in which premiums ON high-end insurance plans (like the one that O'Reilly has) were focused on for a planned INCREASE via taxes and fees, etc - in order to pay for the government's healthcare bill.

I remember bitching about this - maybe not on this forum (I can't remember) but I read that and thought "isn't that wrong . . . to hike on high-end insurance plans to fund everyone else's stuff? . . . punishing those who can afford pristine coverage out of pocket"

So if O'Reilly et al READ the damn thing, too, they would have KNOWN this was an intended effect and they would have KNOWN it was going to happen - and they'd know WHERE the money was going to go (some of it goes directly to forming new research-entities of government so they can learn more about how the changes in the insurance-field and medical-field affect individuals, etc)

So - obvious Bill and other didn't read it like they demanded everyone else do.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Was O'Riely bitching about how evil the corporations were for being greedy and raising the costs?

Or was O'Riely bitching about the fact that the American Public was sold a bill of goods saying that this plan would drive prices down and in reality it is raising them?

If its the first, then you're absolutely correct on your statement of hypocrisy.

If its the second then you're absolutely and completely off base as you beat on a strawman throughout your entire post after making it appear you're focusing on "hypocrisy". Believing that corporations shouldn't be demonized for making profits is not the same as being upset when an action you didn't want to happen has the inverse affect of what it was claimed to have thus making the situation worse.

Specifically, is he bitching about the companies making a profit or about the costs of health care going up...because those two things are not the same thing.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
4,743
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Was O'Riely bitching about how evil the corporations were for being greedy and raising the costs?

Or was O'Riely bitching about the fact that the American Public was sold a bill of goods saying that this plan would drive prices down and in reality it is raising them?

If its the first, then you're absolutely correct on your statement of hypocrisy.

If its the second then you're absolutely and completely off base as you beat on a strawman throughout your entire post after making it appear you're focusing on "hypocrisy". Believing that corporations shouldn't be demonized for making profits is not the same as being upset when an action you didn't want to happen has the inverse affect of what it was claimed to have thus making the situation worse.

Specifically, is he bitching about the companies making a profit or about the costs of health care going up...because those two things are not the same thing.
Think you pretty much nailed it. Oreilly was indicating that obama's health care plan was resulting in increasing costs of health care. He was not complaining about health insurance companies making more profit.

It's not even the insurance companies making more profit, the extra premium they are charging is to make up for the added expenses coming down as a direct result of the health care law. That premium will not be going into their pocketbooks.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
4,743
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I remember bitching about this - maybe not on this forum (I can't remember) but I read that and thought "isn't that wrong . . . to hike on high-end insurance plans to fund everyone else's stuff? . . . punishing those who can afford pristine coverage out of pocket"
I'm not sure if you realize this, but I found it interesting. The reason the democrats wanted to raise the costs on high end insurance plans was to dissuade companies from offering them and individuals from taking them. It turns out that people that have high end insurance plans can obtain better (and more) treatment. That better (and more) treatment drives up the costs of health care for everyone. In other words, as an attempt to control costs, they are attempting to have everyone have slightly worse coverage.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
(Right now I'm regretting the death of my old computer and my thorough favorite-file system of said issue. . . if I had that in tact then I'd be able to just pull up the articles and statements I'm referring to from last year)

If O'Reilly et al had *read* the bill they would have seen the happening increase on *his* plan. . . because I read it and thus I *knew* that the healthcare bill targeted high-end plans (like the one O'Reilly has) for extra taxes and fees *because* the only people who could afford them were well-off.

*IF* these same increases were happening to the average Joe *then* I'd see their issue.

But no - not a single person stood there at a podium and claimed that "high-end insurance packages like those that only the rich can afford will not be taxed and fed upon by the gov."

What's missing in this issue, then, are the facts - what % of the increase = pocket profit. What % of the increase = new taxes/fees. Key issue: what is being raised - premiums on the high-end packages *only* or *everyone's insurance - regardless of benefits and personal-income*

I think if we had those pieces in this puzzle it would make more sense (to me, anyway). . . maybe more details will come out in the next few days since they're focusing on this so much. . . maybe these details are out and I just need to research some more. I don't watch 24/7 news so I'm likely missing out on quite a bit.

Maybe it wasn't Bill who I heard said that profit from the insurance companies wasn't *bad* - maybe it was Smith. I'll have to research some more.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Conservatives were saying all along that premiums would have to go up and not down. How can insurance companies be expected to lower or keep prices the same? They are being forced to take people with pre-existing conditions and "kids" can stay on mommy and daddys plan until they are 26. I've heard callers on talk radio since I heard Bill. The same has happened to them. One said her insurance flat out told her it was because it was because of the new HC bill. It's just redistribution of wealth which the liberal are so keen on. Well, it's obvious it will be hitting everyone and not just the Bill O'Reilys of the world.
How the hell are small businesses or large businesses expected to ever start hiring? This HC bill is a POS and a job killing bill.
Oh well, it's not effecting me. I don't have insurance. I feel for all ya'ya all tho :)

Remember when Kucinich walked onto air force one with Obama and came out willing to vote for the bill? I'm pretty sure, he was convinced that we would have single payer soon if he'd just vote for the bill. Obama knew the prices would skyrocket and eventually Ins, Co. would be put out of business.(more jobs lost)
Don't you just love how quickly this president is flushing our whole way of life right down the toilet?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A whole lot of words none of which denote how saying "Companies aren't evil for making profits" or "Its not bad that health care companies make profits" and later saying "Its bad that health care costs are rising" would make one a hypocrite as one is talking about the profits and the goodness/evilness of the corporation making said profits and the other is speaking in a general sense about the fact that health care costs rising is typically a bad thing.

The two do not mean the same thing, and thinking one is fine does not mean the other can't be thought without making on a hypocrite.

If I think its okay that companies make a profit, but I think health care costs are bad, and feel we need to reduce regulation which would bring down the price of insurance and other expenses relating to health care causing the total price over all to go down while profits to remain the same or go up because there's more people participating in the process or there's less overhead or less law suits then I am not being hypocritical.

Additionally, if the REASON its being raised is because of something I didn't want in the first place then its perfectly reasonable to complain about said raise even though its going to result in greater profit because the raise in price would not have came about if not for the action I was against, and as such is an issue not with the company raising prices in order to attempt for greater profit but raising prices in relation/reaction to something I was against in part for its likelihood to cause said raise in prices.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So why the shock and surprise?

They *really* seem shocked and surprised even though these various hikes on these high-end insurances were pretty much carved in stone and guaranteed.

Do I agree with the hikes? No - I do not.
But am I shocked, surprised or taken aback? Nope.
 
Last edited:

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
4,743
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Right now I'm regretting the death of my old computer and my thorough favorite-file system of said issue. . . if I had that in tact then I'd be able to just pull up the articles and statements I'm referring to from last year)

If O'Reilly et al had *read* the bill they would have seen the happening increase on *his* plan. . . because I read it and thus I *knew* that the healthcare bill targeted high-end plans (like the one O'Reilly has) for extra taxes and fees *because* the only people who could afford them were well-off.

*IF* these same increases were happening to the average Joe *then* I'd see their issue.
Yes, that is one of the reasons. However, the major reason the high end plans were targeted, was an attempt to control health care costs, as I previously stated.

I've had this same discussion with someone on another website. However, the political forum of that website was taken down and I lost a lot of references, including a quote from Waxman (I believe it was) indicating that high end insurance plans were driving up health care costs, and they had to be reigned in with increased taxes, etc as a way to control health care costs.

What's missing in this issue, then, are the facts - what % of the increase = pocket profit. What % of the increase = new taxes/fees. Key issue: what is being raised - premiums on the high-end packages *only* or *everyone's insurance - regardless of benefits and personal-income*

I think if we had those pieces in this puzzle it would make more sense (to me, anyway). . . maybe more details will come out in the next few days since they're focusing on this so much. . . maybe these details are out and I just need to research some more. I don't watch 24/7 news so I'm likely missing out on quite a bit.
Very little, if any of it, is for increased profits. Health insurance premium increases have to be approved by the DOI, and I am certain that the DOI (especially in NY) is not going to be approving premium increases just to increase an insurance companies profit margins.

While I certainly don't have any proof yet, I would expect premium to be increasing on everyone. We can look at MA as an example of how this is expected to play out. There was a recent article that examined health care costs in MA and found that they have increased faster than the rest of the country (due to Romneycare - which Obamacare was closely modeled after). You can't increase coverage and accessibility/demand (no pre-ex, children to 26, etc) and not expect costs to go up.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
So why the shock and surprise?

They *really* seem shocked and surprised even though these various hikes on these high-end insurances were pretty much carved in stone and guaranteed.

Do I agree with the hikes? No - I do not.
But am I shocked, surprised or taken aback? Nope.
I didn't think Bill seemed surprised. Besides the high end TAX I think may have been taken out of the bill. It's not just "rich" people who have it but it's the labor union people too. Can't be getting them upset.
You are not getting a tax from the government you received a premium increase because of what the government is doing to them.
I just don't know why you are surprised. Everyone I know knew premiums would have to up.
Didn't you ever hear the comparison of the HC bill to buying a house? Well it's like if you bought a house and had to make payments on it for four yrs before you were allowed to move in.
It's not a great comparison because some benefits are kicking in sooner than others. And I'm sure more "surprises will be coming down the road.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,536
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(Right now I'm regretting the death of my old computer and my thorough favorite-file system of said issue. . . if I had that in tact then I'd be able to just pull up the articles and statements I'm referring to from last year)

If O'Reilly et al had *read* the bill they would have seen the happening increase on *his* plan. . . because I read it and thus I *knew* that the healthcare bill targeted high-end plans (like the one O'Reilly has) for extra taxes and fees *because* the only people who could afford them were well-off.

*IF* these same increases were happening to the average Joe *then* I'd see their issue.

But no - not a single person stood there at a podium and claimed that "high-end insurance packages like those that only the rich can afford will not be taxed and fed upon by the gov."

What's missing in this issue, then, are the facts - what % of the increase = pocket profit. What % of the increase = new taxes/fees. Key issue: what is being raised - premiums on the high-end packages *only* or *everyone's insurance - regardless of benefits and personal-income*

I think if we had those pieces in this puzzle it would make more sense (to me, anyway). . . maybe more details will come out in the next few days since they're focusing on this so much. . . maybe these details are out and I just need to research some more. I don't watch 24/7 news so I'm likely missing out on quite a bit.

Maybe it wasn't Bill who I heard said that profit from the insurance companies wasn't *bad* - maybe it was Smith. I'll have to research some more.
That doesnt really make sense to me...why are you 'ok' with wealthy people being charged more for their premiums due to the health care bill? WHy shouldnt they be upset?

It hardly matters. if dems maintain control of the house OR senate, we will have universal health care by the time this current version is implemented in 2014. Insurance companies will be grandfathered but unable to take on new clients. eventually ALL middle to low income people will abandon insurance and the wealthy will hire private doctors. By 2016 this will all be a moot point. All that will be left to do is pay for it.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Shocked and Surprised does not equate to Hypocrite
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
My point is meaningless without a particular commentator's opinion. . . which I *use* to have bookmarked. . . but that was on my old computer which kicked the bucket.

If I can find it I'll post it - and them compare what that person said last year to what that person said this week (if anything).

At first I thought it was O'Reilly - because I do watch his show often - but after searching around I couldn't find him saying it - so someone else probably said it (but who? Shephard Smith? I don't know). . . and if I can figure out who said it I'll link it.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
My point is meaningless without a particular commentator's opinion. . . which I *use* to have bookmarked. . . but that was on my old computer which kicked the bucket.

If I can find it I'll post it - and them compare what that person said last year to what that person said this week (if anything).

At first I thought it was O'Reilly - because I do watch his show often - but after searching around I couldn't find him saying it - so someone else probably said it (but who? Shephard Smith? I don't know). . . and if I can figure out who said it I'll link it.
I watch a lot of TV. What are you looking for? Someone who said that only the wealthy would pay? That maybe would be Shep. he's a leftie or it was someone on one of the left channels. Everyone on the right said premiums would go up for everyone and the quality would go down, and we'd eventually end up with socialized medicine.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I watch a lot of TV. What are you looking for? Someone who said that only the wealthy would pay? That maybe would be Shep. he's a leftie or it was someone on one of the left channels. Everyone on the right said premiums would go up for everyone and the quality would go down, and we'd eventually end up with socialized medicine.
(paraphrasing) "There's nothing wrong with the insurance companies making some profit on a much needed but not necessary fact of life" . . . Maybe it was *on* O'Reilly but was one of his guests?

:shrug: My point fails without me being able to source this quote :) LOL! It's ok - you don't have to try anymore. *if* O'Reilly *did* say somethign to that liking someone here would have already found it since he's so well documented.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Think you pretty much nailed it. Oreilly was indicating that obama's health care plan was resulting in increasing costs of health care. He was not complaining about health insurance companies making more profit.

It's not even the insurance companies making more profit, the extra premium they are charging is to make up for the added expenses coming down as a direct result of the health care law. That premium will not be going into their pocketbooks.
Means nothing until you compare it with how much it will cost without the health care plan.

Not surprising, though. Cherry picking is the Reps favorite game.

ricksfolly
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know - when they were debating the healthcare bill *before it passed* i kept hearing "there's nothing wrong with the insurance companies making a little bit of profit" . . . and "free market! Profit is great!" and things like this. . . defending the insurance companies making some profit, opposing Obama's legislation. . .

Ok - so yesterday these *same people* said "my insurance premiums WENT UP and my insurance company says it's because they're anticipating future changes because of the healthcare bill . . . "

And by *these same people* I'm SPECIFICALLY referring to the voices like Bill O'Reilly.

Ok - so if Bill, last year, said "it's ok for the companies to make some profit on health insurance" - then he shouldn't BE BITCHING now should he?

The Liberals and Democrats, however, who said that *profit on health care is wrong* should be complaining at the moment- yes?

Now - right here I'll point out that I READ the bill - yep - I read it. . . little ole me. . . and there are quite a few areas in which premiums ON high-end insurance plans (like the one that O'Reilly has) were focused on for a planned INCREASE via taxes and fees, etc - in order to pay for the government's healthcare bill.

I remember bitching about this - maybe not on this forum (I can't remember) but I read that and thought "isn't that wrong . . . to hike on high-end insurance plans to fund everyone else's stuff? . . . punishing those who can afford pristine coverage out of pocket"

So if O'Reilly et al READ the damn thing, too, they would have KNOWN this was an intended effect and they would have KNOWN it was going to happen - and they'd know WHERE the money was going to go (some of it goes directly to forming new research-entities of government so they can learn more about how the changes in the insurance-field and medical-field affect individuals, etc)

So - obvious Bill and other didn't read it like they demanded everyone else do.
I'm really interested in knowing who at your insurance said that.....in anticipation of...

Everybody's health insurance is going up. That's what it does -- like clockwork. Does anyone really expect it to go down? The question is, "Will it go up more with UHC or without it?
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
4,743
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Means nothing until you compare it with how much it will cost without the health care plan.

Not surprising, though. Cherry picking is the Reps favorite game.

ricksfolly
We can look at what occured in MA as a result of their reforms (which the federal plan was modeled after) to see that premiums have increased faster in MA than the rest of the country.

This even with their governor illegally ordering their insurance commissioner to reject any premium increases in the non-group market. Those premium increases have begun to be approved (due to a judge's order), which means the premiums in that state will be going up even faster than they already have.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
4,743
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(paraphrasing) "There's nothing wrong with the insurance companies making some profit on a much needed but not necessary fact of life" . . . Maybe it was *on* O'Reilly but was one of his guests?
I think the point you may be missing is that even if O'reilly did state this, I, and I think most of those that have responded, aren't seeing how this is a hypocticial statement.

I have no problem with insurance companies making a reasonable profit. However, I do have a problem if Obamacare is causing the cost of health insurance and healthcare to increase.
 
Top Bottom