• 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!

Why "force" insurance companys to provide things

TheGreatSatan

TheGreatSatan

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
An insurance company offers a policy, it covers some somethings, and don't cover others. If you don't like it, you don't buy it. In whats left of our free market economy we have the option to shop around but not for long. The Obama is trying to monopolize the insurance industry by running everyone out of it. Soon "private" insurance will only be for the wealthy/ruling class. The rest of us either pay for The Obama-care or goto jail. This is how socialist operate. For ex, They make driving so unaffordable, only the rich/ruling class can afford it. The little people/serfs are forced to ride the bus/bike/train.

R.I.P. free market
 
Apparently, too many people will never realize that the free market is a much more prefect distributor of services and goods, and that government pulling the strings only turns the issue into the corporatist system we see today.

Government will never price something fairly in accordance with private companies, nor will it's services ever have any hope of being competitively low, but rather be condemned to being fixed and likely to go higher for less care.

The individual is perfectly capable in his own devices.
 
CaveatEmptor said:
Apparently, too many people will never realize that the free market is a much more prefect distributor of services and goods, and that government pulling the strings only turns the issue into the corporatist system we see today.

Government will never price something fairly in accordance with private companies, nor will it's services ever have any hope of being competitively low, but rather be condemned to being fixed and likely to go higher for less care.

The individual is perfectly capable in his own devices.
Click to expand...

nice post :)
 
Because the insurance companies shouldn't be able to screw you because you get sick. No one should go broke because they get sick.
 
Your Star said:
Because the insurance companies shouldn't be able to screw you because you get sick. No one should go broke because they get sick.
Click to expand...

look at this awesome 1 liner... I don't really know how to respond to it. It don't really say anything.
 
TheGreatSatan said:
An insurance company offers a policy, it covers some somethings, and don't cover others. If you don't like it, you don't buy it. In whats left of our free market economy we have the option to shop around but not for long. The Obama is trying to monopolize the insurance industry by running everyone out of it. Soon "private" insurance will only be for the wealthy/ruling class. The rest of us either pay for The Obama-care or goto jail. This is how socialist operate. For ex, They make driving so unaffordable, only the rich/ruling class can afford it. The little people/serfs are forced to ride the bus/bike/train.

R.I.P. free market
Click to expand...

Socialists actually hate insurance. Insurers actually love it when people are forced to buy insurance.
 
CaveatEmptor said:
And how does the financial insolvency / difficulty of clients in any way help them towards profitability?
Click to expand...

how does not milking them for every cent they own help them toward profit?
 
CaveatEmptor said:
And how does the financial insolvency / difficulty of clients in any way help them towards profitability?
Click to expand...

Because they deny their claim and let the hospital take ALL their money. It's money in the bank for every claim they deny. Too many people forget that.
Few people know that that some of the highest paid employees in the insurance industry do NOTHING but deny claims. Their salaries are another big expense we will eliminate with the HC reform bill.
 
Last edited:
"Why 'force' insurance companies to provide things?"

Because that is their job is it not? I am sure every insurance provider would love to just take your money and not give you anything in return. What great profits they would be making then... You pay premiums, and deductibles and co-pays, and they claim they need to stop providing things because they are "too expensive" yet health insurance companies are making record profits, and are about to get 30 million more "paying" customers here in a few years.
 
TheGreatSatan said:
An insurance company offers a policy, it covers some somethings, and don't cover others. If you don't like it, you don't buy it. In whats left of our free market economy we have the option to shop around but not for long. The Obama is trying to monopolize the insurance industry by running everyone out of it. Soon "private" insurance will only be for the wealthy/ruling class. The rest of us either pay for The Obama-care or goto jail. This is how socialist operate. For ex, They make driving so unaffordable, only the rich/ruling class can afford it. The little people/serfs are forced to ride the bus/bike/train.

R.I.P. free market
Click to expand...
Standardized polices allow consumers to intelligently price-shop amongst various providers (insurance companies). For example, private Medicare Supplement policies have been standardized for decades (A, B, C, F plans, etc).

Otherwise each consumer would need to employ a panel of experts/actuaries to compare various coverages offered by various insurers.

This is really simple stuff . . . . . . except, I suppose, for conspiracy theorists. :roll:
 
Last edited:
OnWisconsin said:
"Why 'force' insurance companies to provide things?"

Because that is their job is it not? I am sure every insurance provider would love to just take your money and not give you anything in return. What great profits they would be making then...
Click to expand...
Nobody would buy it unless the government forced them to buy it.
 
Your Star said:
Because the insurance companies shouldn't be able to screw you because you get sick. No one should go broke because they get sick.
Click to expand...

The problem is, when you say "insurance companies shouldn't be able to screw you".... what you are in effect saying is that you want insurance companies to screw you.

That seems illogical, but let me explain. Every system an insurance company puts in place, is there to protect someone from screwing over the insurance company.

But people get this wacky idea that if you remove that ability from the insurance company, they'll just earn less money, and pay out more benefits.

Um... wrong. All companies.... EVERY COMPANY... that exists in the world today, every PENNY that they have comes from one of two locations.
One: Employees through lower benefits and wages.
Two: From consumers through higher costs.

That's the only two places that a company gets a penny from.

So take pre-existing conditions clauses.

Some guy works for 30 years, and never gets insurance. Then he finds out he has cancer, and applies for insurance. The company because of Obama-Care MUST accept him and pay out his insurance claim, even though he never had insurance for 30 years prior.

Who is going to pay that? Do you think the CEO of the insurance company is going to cancel his summer vacation? Or maybe they'll sell their private jet?

No, YOU are going to pay. YOU are going to pay a higher premium, to pay for that guy who is soaking the insurance company.

And every single mandated coverage that an insurance company has to provide, that cost will be passed on to you and every policy holder.

You say, well maybe we can socialize it, and have the government run health care. Really? The completely broke medicare system we can't afford right now? The health care system in France and the UK that are broke?

See... someone has to pay the bills. The fair system is for the person who incurs the bills, to pay the bills. But if you don't like that, then you get to pay for everyone else. You think health care is expensive now? Wait until you have to pay for everyone in the country.
 
OnWisconsin said:
"Why 'force' insurance companies to provide things?"

Because that is their job is it not? I am sure every insurance provider would love to just take your money and not give you anything in return. What great profits they would be making then... You pay premiums, and deductibles and co-pays, and they claim they need to stop providing things because they are "too expensive" yet health insurance companies are making record profits, and are about to get 30 million more "paying" customers here in a few years.
Click to expand...

No one would buy insurance from a company that never paid up on a claim. Medicare denies more claims than private insurance anyway.

By your logic, without government forcing companies to provide service in products, no one anywhere would provide anything. Last I checked there's nothing mandating walmart to provide us with anything, yet I could have sworn I just bought tons of stuff from there. What a dumb comment...
 
Last edited:
Sparkles said:
See... someone has to pay the bills. The fair system is for the person who incurs the bills, to pay the bills. But if you don't like that, then you get to pay for everyone else. You think health care is expensive now? Wait until you have to pay for everyone in the country.
Click to expand...

But there is something you missed... you have to pay for it anyway. See, before Obama got into office, these people either went to free clinics and got ****ty treatment on your government dollar (meaning you paid for it in taxes) or through some other subsidy. Option 2 is that they go to emergency rooms and get emergency treatment without paying for it. You also pay for this already through higher hospital bills. So there are two lines of thought:

Allow people to have insurance or some sort of UHC plan so that they go to the doctor regularly and preventative care can start - effectively lowering everyone's bills. Or, if you are at a republican debate, you probably just want to "let them die" (isn't that the exact words they yelled "YES!!!" at when Dr. Paul was asked that question rhetorically).
 
Your Star said:
Because the insurance companies shouldn't be able to screw you because you get sick. No one should go broke because they get sick.
Click to expand...

How are they are screwing you because you bought the wrong coverage and couldn't afford what you needed when you got sick?

All you are doing here honestly is violating their rights because of your own failure.
 
whysoserious said:
But there is something you missed... you have to pay for it anyway. See, before Obama got into office, these people either went to free clinics and got ****ty treatment on your government dollar (meaning you paid for it in taxes) or through some other subsidy. Option 2 is that they go to emergency rooms and get emergency treatment without paying for it. You also pay for this already through higher hospital bills. So there are two lines of thought:

Allow people to have insurance or some sort of UHC plan so that they go to the doctor regularly and preventative care can start - effectively lowering everyone's bills. Or, if you are at a republican debate, you probably just want to "let them die" (isn't that the exact words they yelled "YES!!!" at when Dr. Paul was asked that question rhetorically).
Click to expand...

Wrong, I disagree completely.

First, the idea that preventative care reduces cost, is completely wrong. We have more preventative care in the US than any other country, and it is part of the reason we spend more on health care than other nations.

Second, there are many charities that offer help to those who need health care. I can think of several off the top of my head that do so. I have no problem with charity care. Charity is money given freely for the aid of someone else. It's far cheaper and cost effective, than any UHC plan. Remember, Medicare is going bankrupt. Don't pretend like adding more people wouldn't cause a larger problem.

Third, you are assuming that everyone would be irresponsible. There will always be the few, true. But if you told people that if they didn't have health insurance, and couldn't pay for treatment, that they wouldn't get ANY health care, I would guess the number of irresponsible people would drastically decline.

Fourth, the quality of care in government paid for health care, is horrible. Private pay for service is far better by a long shot.

Finally, if the effects of people's health choices directly effected your pay check, you yourself would say "let them die", and you are lying if you deny it.

If a person in your company that smoked, drink, shot up drugs, and didn't exercise, weighted 400 lbs, and lived a high risk life style, and every time they needed health care, you were directly forced to pay that bill, you'd be screaming to let him die. Well, that's what you are suggesting with UHC.

The only alternative is to ration care, which is why Canadians have to wait 4 years for a basic surgery that would require a few months at the most in the US. Which is why they come here to pay for care, because they can't get it there.
 
Sparkles said:
Wrong, I disagree completely.

First, the idea that preventative care reduces cost, is completely wrong. We have more preventative care in the US than any other country, and it is part of the reason we spend more on health care than other nations.

Second, there are many charities that offer help to those who need health care. I can think of several off the top of my head that do so. I have no problem with charity care. Charity is money given freely for the aid of someone else. It's far cheaper and cost effective, than any UHC plan. Remember, Medicare is going bankrupt. Don't pretend like adding more people wouldn't cause a larger problem.

Third, you are assuming that everyone would be irresponsible. There will always be the few, true. But if you told people that if they didn't have health insurance, and couldn't pay for treatment, that they wouldn't get ANY health care, I would guess the number of irresponsible people would drastically decline.

Fourth, the quality of care in government paid for health care, is horrible. Private pay for service is far better by a long shot.

Finally, if the effects of people's health choices directly effected your pay check, you yourself would say "let them die", and you are lying if you deny it.

If a person in your company that smoked, drink, shot up drugs, and didn't exercise, weighted 400 lbs, and lived a high risk life style, and every time they needed health care, you were directly forced to pay that bill, you'd be screaming to let him die. Well, that's what you are suggesting with UHC.

The only alternative is to ration care, which is why Canadians have to wait 4 years for a basic surgery that would require a few months at the most in the US. Which is why they come here to pay for care, because they can't get it there.
Click to expand...



Preventative care DOES lower costs for insurance companies. Taking birth control pills, which costs about $50/month or $600/year is less expensive than raising a child. The first year alone is $10k and upwards.

Frequent visits to the doctor's will let you know if you need to monitor your health, effectively lower your chances for certain illness such as heart disease, diabetes and even obesity. If you don't have that heart attack, the insurance company doesn't have to pay for that surgery, all it needs to pay is for the consultation and preventative medicines. It also doesn't have to pay for long term outpatient care either.
 
Lightdemon said:
Preventative care DOES lower costs for insurance companies. Taking birth control pills, which costs about $50/month or $600/year is less expensive than raising a child. The first year alone is $10k and upwards.

Frequent visits to the doctor's will let you know if you need to monitor your health, effectively lower your chances for certain illness such as heart disease, diabetes and even obesity. If you don't have that heart attack, the insurance company doesn't have to pay for that surgery, all it needs to pay is for the consultation and preventative medicines. It also doesn't have to pay for long term outpatient care either.
Click to expand...

Oh please. So a child is an illness now?

Are we talking about illness or you not wanting people to have children?

I would completely disagree with the idea that frequent visits to the doctor will lower your chance of any of those things. Again, we have more preventative care here, than anywhere else. Why don't we have the lowest cost? Why don't we have the lowest incidence rates?
 
Sparkles said:
Wrong, I disagree completely.

First, the idea that preventative care reduces cost, is completely wrong. We have more preventative care in the US than any other country, and it is part of the reason we spend more on health care than other nations.

Second, there are many charities that offer help to those who need health care. I can think of several off the top of my head that do so. I have no problem with charity care. Charity is money given freely for the aid of someone else. It's far cheaper and cost effective, than any UHC plan. Remember, Medicare is going bankrupt. Don't pretend like adding more people wouldn't cause a larger problem.

Third, you are assuming that everyone would be irresponsible. There will always be the few, true. But if you told people that if they didn't have health insurance, and couldn't pay for treatment, that they wouldn't get ANY health care, I would guess the number of irresponsible people would drastically decline.

Fourth, the quality of care in government paid for health care, is horrible. Private pay for service is far better by a long shot.

Finally, if the effects of people's health choices directly effected your pay check, you yourself would say "let them die", and you are lying if you deny it.

If a person in your company that smoked, drink, shot up drugs, and didn't exercise, weighted 400 lbs, and lived a high risk life style, and every time they needed health care, you were directly forced to pay that bill, you'd be screaming to let him die. Well, that's what you are suggesting with UHC.

The only alternative is to ration care, which is why Canadians have to wait 4 years for a basic surgery that would require a few months at the most in the US. Which is why they come here to pay for care, because they can't get it there.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything you just said has any substance behind it. Do you have any proof that preventive care isn't cost effective?
 
Sparkles said:
Oh please. So a child is an illness now?

Are we talking about illness or you not wanting people to have children?

I would completely disagree with the idea that frequent visits to the doctor will lower your chance of any of those things. Again, we have more preventative care here, than anywhere else. Why don't we have the lowest cost? Why don't we have the lowest incidence rates?
Click to expand...

Pregnancies are not considered an illness, no. However insurance companies provide plans for pregnancies nonetheless, and an unwanted pregnancy is much more expensive than a years worth of pills. The pills are a preventative medicine. And anyway, we were not talking about illnesses, we were discussing what insurance companies should provide.

what is your reasoning that frequent visits to the doctors does not lower your chances of diseases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom