• 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!

Obamacare may turn away the chronically uninsured

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,522
Reaction score
34,321
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
another good reason for passing Obamacare. what about all those poor people with preexisting conditions? it was blatantly impossible for them to form high-risk pools, join prepay plans, or have their states form alternatives for them - the only possible way to save lives was to have an immediate, drastic federal overall of 1/6th of our economy without even understanding what we were doing!!!


yeah. woops?

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions..

Healthcare experts of all stripes warned during the healthcare debate that $5 billion would likely not last until 2014. Millions of Americans cannot find affordable healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions, and that amount would only cover a couple hundred thousand people, according to a recent study by the chief Medicare actuary.

Republicans continued to hammer that point on Thursday, asking HHS officials to brief them about the program.

We are “deeply concerned that these pools may not provide quality coverage or will limit enrollment,” Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the ranking members on the Energy and Commerce panel and its health and oversight subcommittees, wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius...

In addition, Popper said, many people won’t be able to afford to participate in the program since premiums will range between about $140 and $900 a month, depending on applicants’ age and where they live. HHS estimates that at least 200,000 people will be in the program at any one time. To be eligible, applicants have to be citizens or nationals of the United States or be lawfully present; have a pre-existing medical condition; and have been uninsured for at least six months before applying for the high-risk pool plan.

“There are going to be meaningful premiums that are going to be required to stay in this plan — premiums in the hundreds of dollars every month,” Popper said. “There are a significant number of people out there with pre-existing conditions who are uninsured, but a significant number of those people ... also have limited income. And some of them, while they may need this plan, the premiums may not be something they can afford...

If it looks like too many people are signing up — states will get monthly updates on how many people they can cover with the money they have left — there’s always the option of turning people down.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sounds to me like a good reason to have universal healthcare instead of mandatory private health insurance.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services.

In the field of consumer goods, government devotes all its attention to preserving yesterday's jobs, and none at all to producing tomorrow's products. Remember the Yugo and the Brabi?

In the field of consumer services, the service providers are civil servants who are responsible only to their supervisors and have no responsibility to the customers. Think DMV.

The only way the consumer can prosper is when he/she has alternative sources from which to choose. A government monopoly is just as oppressive as any private monopoly; think USSR, Cuba or Venezuela.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services.

In the field of consumer goods, government devotes all its attention to preserving yesterday's jobs, and none at all to producing tomorrow's products. Remember the Yugo and the Brabi?

In the field of consumer services, the service providers are civil servants who are responsible only to their supervisors and have no responsibility to the customers. Think DMV.

The only way the consumer can prosper is when he/she has alternative sources from which to choose. A government monopoly is just as oppressive as any private monopoly; think USSR, Cuba or Venezuela.

You don't understand how UHC works, and it has been delivered very well in many countries.

It's also hilarious that Republicans are even talking about this. You people didn't want the high-risk pool to exist in the first place, now you're sad that some people might be excluded? Maybe you should have anticipated this and suggested that the allocation be bumped to $7 billion or $10 billion. Oh wait, you weren't going to vote for it no matter what, despite the entire bill being pretty much exactly what you proposed during the Clinton administration. Before it was your own idea, then it's socialism, and now it doesn't give enough to the poor?

The hypocrisy is impressive.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You don't understand how UHC works, and it has been delivered very well in many countries.

It's also hilarious that Republicans are even talking about this. You people didn't want the high-risk pool to exist in the first place, now you're sad that some people might be excluded? Maybe you should have anticipated this and suggested that the allocation be bumped to $7 billion or $10 billion. Oh wait, you weren't going to vote for it no matter what, despite the entire bill being pretty much exactly what you proposed during the Clinton administration. Before it was your own idea, then it's socialism, and now it doesn't give enough to the poor?

The hypocrisy is impressive.

Stop confusing the issue with facts!
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,867
Reaction score
35,190
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services.

In the field of consumer goods, government devotes all its attention to preserving yesterday's jobs, and none at all to producing tomorrow's products. Remember the Yugo and the Brabi?

In the field of consumer services, the service providers are civil servants who are responsible only to their supervisors and have no responsibility to the customers. Think DMV.

The only way the consumer can prosper is when he/she has alternative sources from which to choose. A government monopoly is just as oppressive as any private monopoly; think USSR, Cuba or Venezuela.
i note your position and then i compare it to reality
notice that we pay twice as much per person in health care costs compared to other major nations
which means those public health care systems in the other major industrial nations only incur half the per capita expense of health care coverage
it would appear the facts work against your position ... unless you would be able to prove our health care is twice as good as our international counterparts. and that is before recognizing that unlike us, they care for their entire populations
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You don't understand how UHC works,
And neither do you.
and it has been delivered very well in many countries.
Nope, proving you don't know what you are talking about. The only relatively successful UHC models come from very small countries with a fraction of a percentage of the major UHC providers who are in cost crisis mode right now.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What facts? He is completely wrong.
No he isn't!
Wait...

And neither do you. Nope, proving you don't know what you are talking about. The only relatively successful UHC models come from very small countries with a fraction of a percentage of the major UHC providers who are in cost crisis mode right now.
We're in cost-crisis mode. 16% of GDP vs the next closest of 10% or so. Canada, for example, is having budget problems, but they still spend fewer tax dollars on health care than we do. Read that again. America spends more tax dollars on health care than Canada. Changing demographics and poor lifestyle choices are driving everyone towards the same cost-cliff, but America is going over the edge before everyone else is.

You make lovely statements like "No you're wrong you don't know the facts" yet don't post any evidence to support that.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No he isn't!
Wait...
Yes, you....you are incorrect, wrong if you will. You aren't a healthcare or insurance professional and are using the same debunked crap that wasn't correct the first ****ing time it was issued. So that would make you wrong, it's okay to admit it.


We're in cost-crisis mode. 16% of GDP vs the next closest of 10% or so. Canada, for example, is having budget problems, but they still spend fewer tax dollars on health care than we do.
Let me 'splain it for you. Canada having budget problems paying for healthcare as well as the UK, Spain, France, Germany to varying degrees and all of the other budget busters have to measure expenditures as a portion of GDP cause......stay with me now, the taxpayers are on the hook for everyone's medical coverage.....provided it's ever issued since there are rationing boards in many of those UHC countries. If you want to wait for essential care be my guest, but don't expect everyone else to suffer it. As well, the US is mainly a user pays system, so it is more instantaneous, as well, the GDP costs are irrelevant because guess what, individuals pay for it with minor exceptions. Now, there is NOTHING, not a thing, ZERO, NADA in UHC which will actually adress the things that make healthcare artificially expensive, if you care to read back in other threads Captain Courtesy, a few other informed posters, and myself have spelled them out at great expense to our time because we actually give a **** what happens to medical care in this country and don't have agendas in this other than getting people the best system humanly possible.
Read that again. America spends more tax dollars on health care than Canada. Changing demographics and poor lifestyle choices are driving everyone towards the same cost-cliff, but America is going over the edge before everyone else is.
Already been handled, by the above. If you want to have a discussion on this bring more than a bunch of empty and easily defeated rhetoric, as well actually learn a few things about my industry before consulting biased blogs and talking points, otherwise you will continue to be wrong.

You make lovely statements like "No you're wrong you don't know the facts" yet don't post any evidence to support that.
No evidence, LOL! I have been putting industry knowledge out, you have been regurgitating incorrect. 'Scuse me if I call you on it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You've been typing words into an internet forum and citing "industry knowledge" as if that should end the argument.

Nothing to address costs in UHC? Within a quarter of a second "drug costs" came to mind. Having the entire population as a bargaining pool gets you lower prices on, well, pretty much anything you want. Then there's administrative overhead, which is lower in countries with UHC. Depending on the system, you can remove the profit margin from healthcare to shave a few percentage points off. If UHC (which is so wide a range of systems that trying to discuss it like this is almost absurd) does nothing to address cost, why does every country that adopts it spend less?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You've been typing words into an internet forum and citing "industry knowledge" as if that should end the argument.
Industry knowledge means more than a bunch of blog posts because I work in the industry, your sources do not. End of discussion.

Nothing to address costs in UHC? Within a quarter of a second "drug costs" came to mind. Having the entire population as a bargaining pool gets you lower prices on, well, pretty much anything you want.
No, the unhealthy will still have to use drugs, and the R&D costs are not affected in that respect. As well, only people who NEED them will be using them for the most part. You lose on this point.
Then there's administrative overhead, which is lower in countries with UHC.
Nope, full retirement to those running the system through government departments. The administrative costs are backloaded at a higher cost. You lose on this point.
Depending on the system, you can remove the profit margin from healthcare to shave a few percentage points off. If UHC (which is so wide a range of systems that trying to discuss it like this is almost absurd) does nothing to address cost, why does every country that adopts it spend less?
Ah, so "because Deuce says so" is the theme here. Tell you what, you'll know when you get one right after I respond, until then you can debate with yourself because you truly have demonstrated no working knowledge of this subject. Ta.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Industry knowledge means more than a bunch of blog posts because I work in the industry, your sources do not. End of discussion.

No, the unhealthy will still have to use drugs, and the R&D costs are not affected in that respect. As well, only people who NEED them will be using them for the most part. You lose on this point. Nope, full retirement to those running the system through government departments. The administrative costs are backloaded at a higher cost. You lose on this point. Ah, so "because Deuce says so" is the theme here. Tell you what, you'll know when you get one right after I respond, until then you can debate with yourself because you truly have demonstrated no working knowledge of this subject. Ta.

So many argumentative fallacies it's hilarious. You realize you haven't cited any sources at all in this thread, right?

You accuse me of the "Deuce says so" method but this is precisely what you're doing.

You don't think Aetna's CEO gets a retirement package?

If you have some numbers to support your statements, maybe you'll have some grounds to make these accusations.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So many argumentative fallacies it's hilarious. You realize you haven't cited any sources at all in this thread, right?

You accuse me of the "Deuce says so" method but this is precisely what you're doing.

You don't think Aetna's CEO gets a retirement package?

If you have some numbers to support your statements, maybe you'll have some grounds to make these accusations.
Deuce, you don't get it do you? The issue is ER overcrowding and the expenses that brings due to abuse, there are countless industry reports and news stories available to anyone that knows the very basics of research. The only fallacy here is the strawman you built to discredit the story, you started from the wrong position and misrepresented what it means which I am sure now was completely on purpose.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deuce, you don't get it do you? The issue is ER overcrowding and the expenses that brings due to abuse, there are countless industry reports and news stories available to anyone that knows the very basics of research. The only fallacy here is the strawman you built to discredit the story, you started from the wrong position and misrepresented what it means which I am sure now was completely on purpose.

The straw man that conservatives are attacking a high-risk pool for being too small when they didn't want it to exist in the first place? That straw man?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The straw man that conservatives are attacking a high-risk pool for being too small when they didn't want it to exist in the first place? That straw man?
Yes, your assertion that this is the conservative argument is another great example of a strawman. As well, you have just proven again you aren't quite sure how health coverage works. High risk pools should be small and should be exclusionary because these are the portions of the population with the greatest consumption of medical services, most of which being in the highest dollar catagories. As well, this high risk pool will necessarily be more expensive since it requires the most usage of the money, next part of that is the group coverage model, it is the most expensive because the pool is weighted towards the least healthy amongst the group since everyone must have the same rate in their coverage group. If anything, people who actually know what they are talking about would argue that high risk pooling should be a singular classification, not a group model. Finally, NONE of that has anything to do with the topic at hand in a major sense because ER care while the most expensive is not used for minor things by those with private coverage since they necessarily can get primary care and are willing to pay for it, not use a legal technicality to stick those insured with the additional cost.

So, to summarize.....nice try but you are completely out of your element here.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, your assertion that this is the conservative argument is another great example of a strawman. As well, you have just proven again you aren't quite sure how health coverage works. High risk pools should be small and should be exclusionary because these are the portions of the population with the greatest consumption of medical services, most of which being in the highest dollar catagories. As well, this high risk pool will necessarily be more expensive since it requires the most usage of the money, next part of that is the group coverage model, it is the most expensive because the pool is weighted towards the least healthy amongst the group since everyone must have the same rate in their coverage group. If anything, people who actually know what they are talking about would argue that high risk pooling should be a singular classification, not a group model. Finally, NONE of that has anything to do with the topic at hand in a major sense because ER care while the most expensive is not used for minor things by those with private coverage since they necessarily can get primary care and are willing to pay for it, not use a legal technicality to stick those insured with the additional cost.

So, to summarize.....nice try but you are completely out of your element here.

Are you sure you're not confusing this thread with the other one? This thread is about the high-risk pool.
We are “deeply concerned that these pools may not provide quality coverage or will limit enrollment,” Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the ranking members on the Energy and Commerce panel

Republicans are "deeply concerned" that this pool will "limit enrollment." They voted against this pool even existing. This is the point I was making.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Are you sure you're not confusing this thread with the other one? This thread is about the high-risk pool.
Yes I did confuse them.


Republicans are "deeply concerned" that this pool will "limit enrollment." They voted against this pool even existing. This is the point I was making.
This bill does not fix anything about high risk pools, and you were taking the stand that adding high risk will somehow magically reduce cost. Insurance does not work that way.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes I did confuse them.


This bill does not fix anything about high risk pools, and you were taking the stand that adding high risk will somehow magically reduce cost. Insurance does not work that way.

What? No I wasn't. That was talking about single-payer/UHC.

Those are different things.

High-risk pools are going to be expensive regardless of what you do, because those are the expensive patients. The pool itself is not going to reduce total costs, merely spread that cost out amongst the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What? No I wasn't. That was talking about single-payer/UHC.

Those are different things.
And the fact that you actually think this is exactly why I cannot take you seriously in this debate. If you truly think that high risk pools which exist in any system due to consumption of services you are fooling yourself, and yourself only. Look, I know you want subsidized healthcare at successfull and productive people's expense, I get that. The problem is there is reality and then there is what you want to happen, the two aren't compatible.

High-risk pools are going to be expensive regardless of what you do, because those are the expensive patients. The pool itself is not going to reduce total costs, merely spread that cost out amongst the taxpayers.
Oh, yeah. So then "no matter what you do" unhealthy people cost more, and UHC has no options other than DENIAL to counter costs. What good is free **** if you don't have access to it? You really need to stop trying to lecture others on this topic, you've proven you don't understand it, you especially need to stop lecturing me as it is my profession. Again, bring facts or you are dismissed.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the fact that you actually think this is exactly why I cannot take you seriously in this debate. If you truly think that high risk pools which exist in any system due to consumption of services you are fooling yourself, and yourself only. Look, I know you want subsidized healthcare at successfull and productive people's expense, I get that. The problem is there is reality and then there is what you want to happen, the two aren't compatible.

Oh, yeah. So then "no matter what you do" unhealthy people cost more, and UHC has no options other than DENIAL to counter costs. What good is free **** if you don't have access to it? You really need to stop trying to lecture others on this topic, you've proven you don't understand it, you especially need to stop lecturing me as it is my profession. Again, bring facts or you are dismissed.

What in God's name are you talking about? You're inventing all kinds of things that I never actually said. My contribution to the thread was this:

Republicans voted against the health care reform bill and the high-risk pool provisions it contains.
Republicans later attack the bill because the high-risk pool is too small or something.



Everything else was some bizarre derail that YOU started. I'm honestly baffled as to where you are getting all of this. High-risk pools are more expensive because high-risk patients are more expensive. Anything else you think I was saying is a fabrication of your own brain. Nothing is free, I don't know where you came up with that particular talking point, but it sure as hell wasn't from me.

Seriously. Go ****ing back to the start of this thread and read again. Just that one, first post I made. When trying to understand it, only pay attention to the words I actually wrote instead of what you assume that I'm saying.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What in God's name are you talking about? You're inventing all kinds of things that I never actually said. My contribution to the thread was this:
Oh, but you did say it and don't realize it.

Republicans voted against the health care reform bill and the high-risk pool provisions it contains.
Republicans later attack the bill because the high-risk pool is too small or something.
News flash, there aint no "high risk pool" provision in the bill, but there is mandatory coverage.



Everything else was some bizarre derail that YOU started. I'm honestly baffled as to where you are getting all of this. High-risk pools are more expensive because high-risk patients are more expensive. Anything else you think I was saying is a fabrication of your own brain. Nothing is free, I don't know where you came up with that particular talking point, but it sure as hell wasn't from me.
Um, you attacked a fellow poster for not knowing the issue, I simply demonstrated you don't either.

Seriously. Go ****ing back to the start of this thread and read again. Just that one, first post I made. When trying to understand it, only pay attention to the words I actually wrote instead of what you assume that I'm saying.
Again, everything I addressed is EXACTLY what you are advocating for whether you realize it or not. That you are getting frustrated is your problem.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hahahah. Ok. I'm for things that I don't realize I'm for.

You're inventing arguments and then attacking them with the wonderful tactic of "I know everything because I'm in the business and you know nothing so THERE, I win!"

Have fun with that. Apparently you don't actually need me for this "debate." You seem to have it all covered in your head. Enjoy.

Meanwhile:
High-Risk Insurance Pools Launched - WSJ.com
So this $5billion for high-risk pools, and the requirement for states to make a decision on high-risk pools. It's not a high-risk pool? It's not in the bill? Let's look!
Text of H.R.3590 as Amendment in Senate (OC Prepared): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
So what is this then, mr. industry man?

Or maybe you're just trying to score some e-points by debating semantics?
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hahahah. Ok. I'm for things that I don't realize I'm for.

You're inventing arguments and then attacking them with the wonderful tactic of "I know everything because I'm in the business and you know nothing so THERE, I win!"

Have fun with that. Apparently you don't actually need me for this "debate." You seem to have it all covered in your head. Enjoy.

Meanwhile:
High-Risk Insurance Pools Launched - WSJ.com
So this $5billion for high-risk pools, and the requirement for states to make a decision on high-risk pools. It's not a high-risk pool? It's not in the bill? Let's look!
Text of H.R.3590 as Amendment in Senate (OC Prepared): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
So what is this then, mr. industry man?

Or maybe you're just trying to score some e-points by debating semantics?
Cute, now how does that actually address the cost problem in your expert opinion? Yeah, thought so.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Cute, now how does that actually address the cost problem in your expert opinion? Yeah, thought so.

I already told you the high-risk pool itself does not address costs. You're making connections where there are none. Again.

UHC has some advantages that reduce cost. A high-risk pool like this one does not. Clear enough?

Here, I'll help you out:
I do not now, nor have I ever believed this high-risk pool would somehow make unhealthy people cheaper to care for.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom